Beyond the heckler’s veto: analysis of undergraduate students who consider violence to suppress free speech

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Beyond the Heckler’s Veto:
Analysis of Undergraduate Students Who Consider Violence to Suppress Free Speech
by
Mark F. Lucas
Barbara J. and Roger W. Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2025

© Copyright by Mark F. Lucas 2025
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Mark F. Lucas certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Anthony Maddox
Marcus Pritchard
Monique Claire Datta, Committee Chair
Barbara J. and Roger W. Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2025

iv
Abstract
The decline of free speech and rise of cancel culture on American university campuses is
detrimental to student learning. Results of a 2023 study by the Foundation for Individual Rights
and Expression (FIRE) showed that 27% of undergraduate students were willing to consider
violence to suppress speech with which they disagreed. That percentage has been consistently
increasing since 2020. This current study leverages the raw data from the 2023 FIRE study of
responses from 55,102 undergraduates in the United States. It utilizes a theoretical framework
based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to analyze the impact of a student’s
classmates, faculty, and college administrators on their willingness to consider violence against
free speech. Results show that students are significantly less likely to consider violence than the
overall sample population when their university administrators are extremely clear about their
protection of campus free speech. Moreover, undergraduates who talk to their friends about
controversial issues are significantly less likely to consider violence than the overall sample,
while those that have similar conversations with faculty are significantly more likely to do so. To
address these issues and improve campus free speech culture, this study recommends that
universities fully adopt the Chicago Statement and Kalven Principles, that they begin to teach
students that it is admirable to disagree civilly, and that they eliminate the use of mandatory
diversity statements in faculty hiring and promotion decisions. Suggested future research on this
topic can refine understanding of what leads students to consider violence in response to speech.
Keywords: free speech, free expression, First Amendment, academic freedom, cancel
culture, heckler’s veto, institutional neutrality, Chicago Statement, Kalven Report, bias response
teams

v
Dedication
To my immediate family for their love manifested in so many ways: to my most wonderful wife,
Virginia, for her unending patience, unwavering support, and unbounded grace and wisdom
through many challenges; to my amazing son, Matthew, for his intelligence and passion as he
carves out his own path while always showing empathy and honor to his parents and
grandparents; and to my own father and mother, Reynaldo and Ester, for their sacrifice,
inspiration, and example. There are not enough words to express my love and humble gratitude
to you all. Thank you to God for making you the best parts of me and my life. May I always
strive to be worthy of your love and kindness.

vi
Acknowledgements
To my dissertation committee: Dr. Monique Datta, I am honored and privileged to have
you as my chair—your generosity of time and spirit combined with your absolute clarity of
direction amidst a plethora of your own personal challenges reflects huge credit upon you, and
all of USC Rossier is truly blessed to have you as part of our community; Dr. Marcus “Stitch”
Pritchard, I know of no one who better combines the theoretical knowledge of leadership with its
real-life application than you, and your thorough and balanced approach to research and writing
strengthened me as a student and an academic; Dr. Anthony Maddox, I am inspired by the depth
and breadth of your knowledge and the truly heterodox way you apply that knowledge—when I
grow up, I want to be like you.
To The Fung & The Restless—Clint “The Rabbit” Brooks, J. “:” Cremin, Sten “Daryl”
Ensberg, C. Gary Freeman, MC Adrian Fung, and David J. Stanley, Jr.—this journey would have
been much more stressful and much less fun without the six of you impressive, intelligent, and
irreverent brothers in doctoral craziness. To the many other members of Cohort 23 who shared
time with me in class and on teams, I am grateful for your wisdom and encouragement. To Dr.
Kim Brower and Dr. Eric Canny, I will be eternally in your debt for the compassion you showed
to me during one of the most difficult times in my life. To Dr. Sean Stevens, I am massively
appreciative of you offering access to the raw data which forms the backbone of this study.
There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
This dissertation necessarily complies with the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (7th Edition). Such compliance does not imply endorsement thereof.
Please address any questions or comments to Mark F. Lucas. Email: mflucas@usc.edu

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions..................................................................5
Importance of the Study ......................................................................................................6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................7
Definition of Terms.............................................................................................................7
Organization of the Study..................................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature.........................................................................................11
Historical Context of Free Speech Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors...............................11
History of Free Speech at Universities through 2014 .......................................................24
Current Trends: 2014 to the Present..................................................................................30
Conceptual Framework .....................................................................................................48
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................52
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................54
Research Questions ...........................................................................................................54
Overview of Design...........................................................................................................54

viii
Research Setting ................................................................................................................55
The Researcher..................................................................................................................56
Data Sources......................................................................................................................58
Participants........................................................................................................................58
Instrumentation..................................................................................................................58
Data Collection Procedures...............................................................................................59
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................60
Validity and Reliability .....................................................................................................61
Ethics ...............................................................................................................................61
Chapter Four: Results....................................................................................................................63
Participants........................................................................................................................63
Study Results.....................................................................................................................63
Results: RQ1......................................................................................................................72
Results: RQ2......................................................................................................................80
Results: RQ3......................................................................................................................87
Summary............................................................................................................................96
Chapter Five: Discussion of Results and Recommendations........................................................99
Discussion: RQ1 ...............................................................................................................99
Discussion: RQ2..............................................................................................................101
Discussion: RQ3..............................................................................................................103
Recommendation 1: Embrace the Chicago Statement and Kalven Report .....................105
Recommendation 2: Teach Undergraduates that it is Admirable to Disagree Civilly ....105
Recommendation 3: End Use of Diversity Statements in Hiring and Promotions..........106

ix
Limitations and Delimitations.........................................................................................108
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................................................109
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................110
References ...................................................................................................................................112
Appendix A: Survey Codebook...................................................................................................136
Appendix B: Demographics Codebook.......................................................................................159
Appendix C: Example Diversity Statement Writing Guidelines.................................................169
Appendix D: Sample Contributions to Diversity Statements, Biology.......................................171
Appendix E: Sample Contributions to Diversity Statements, Physical Sciences........................176
Appendix F: Sample Contributions to Diversity Statements, Engineering Example..................178

x
List of Tables
Table 1 Data Sources.....................................................................................................................55
Table 2 Size of Key Student Groups .............................................................................................64
Table 3 Gender Composition of Student Groups...........................................................................65
Table 4 Sexual Orientation Breakdown of Student Groups ..........................................................66
Table 5 Graduation Year Breakdown of Student Groups ..............................................................66
Table 6 Socioeconomic Status Breakdown of Student Groups.....................................................67
Table 7 Race/Ethnic Breakdown of Student Groups.....................................................................68
Table 8 Academic Major Category Breakdown of Student Groups..............................................69
Table 9 Political Ideology Breakdown of Student Groups............................................................70
Table 10 Geographic Breakdown of Student Groups....................................................................70
Table 11 Public versus Private University Breakdown of Student Groups...................................71
Table 12 Top 10 Universities for Each Student Group..................................................................71
Table 13 How Comfortable Would You Feel Doing the Following on Your Campus? (RQ1) .....73
Table 14 On Your Campus, How Often Have You / Do You Done the Following? (RQ1)...........74
Table 15 Do You Talk to friends About Controversial Issues? (RQ1)...........................................75
Table 16 Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (By Gender) (RQ1).....................76
Table 17 Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (By Sexual Orientation) (RQ1) ..77
Table 18 Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (by Race/Ethnicity) (RQ1) .........78
Table 19 Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (by Major) (RQ1) .......................79
Table 20 How Comfortable Would You Feel Doing the Following on Your Campus? (RQ2) .....81
Table 21 How Often Do You Self-Censor During Conversations With Your Professors? (RQ2).82
Table 22 Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (RQ2)..........................................82

xi
Table 23 Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Gender) (RQ2) .....................83
Table 24 Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Sexual Orientation) (RQ2)...84
Table 25 Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Race/Ethnicity) (RQ2) .........85
Table 26 Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Major) (RQ2) .......................86
Table 27 How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (RQ3).......................................88
Table 28 How Likely Would Administrators Defend a Controversial Speaker’s Rights? (RQ3) .89
Table 29 Do You Talk to College Administrators About Controversial Issues? (RQ3) ................90
Table 30 How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Gender) (RQ3)...................91
Table 31 How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Sexual Orientation) (RQ3) 92
Table 32 How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Race/Ethnicity) (RQ3).......93
Table 33 How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Major) (RQ3).....................95

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ...............................................................................................52

xiii
List of Abbreviations
AAUP American Association of University Professors
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
Caltech California Institute of Technology
CSULA California State University, Los Angeles
CSUN California State University, Northridge
DEI Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
FIRE Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Before June 6, 2022,
known as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
MAGA Make America Great Again
NRBA National Religious Broadcasters Association
RQ1 Research Question One
RQ2 Research Question Two
RQ3 Research Question Three
SCOTUS The Supreme Court of the United States
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
SUNY State University of New York
U University
UN United Nations
UC University of California
UCLA University of California, Los Angeles
USPTO U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
USC University of Southern California

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The decline of free speech, stifling of debate, and rise of cancel culture within American
colleges and universities creates an environment detrimental to student learning. Non-partisan
research shows that students regularly self-censor. In a 2023 study of over 55,000
undergraduates by College Pulse and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
(FIRE), 86% of college students indicated that there were times when they could not express
their opinions for fear of how students, faculty, or administration would respond (Stevens, 2023).
Zhou and Barbaro (2023) described how nearly 60% of students they surveyed were reluctant to
specifically discuss gender, politics, race, religion, or sexual orientation, primarily due to fear of
negative reactions and consequences they anticipate receiving from intolerant peers; these
numbers were even higher for multiple demographic and psychographic segments.
These fears are likely due to the fact that young adults in the United States are more
likely than those older than them to act out against opinions they dislike. According to a 2022
study, 34% of adults aged 18 to 34 admitted to having “retaliated against or harshly criticized
another person because of something they said” (The New York Times and the Siena Research
Institute, 2022, p. 11). This rate is significantly greater than the 25% of the 35-49 age
demographic who agreed to that statement and more than double the 14% of Americans aged 50
or more.
Within the segment of young adults, the subsegment of undergraduate students on
American university campuses is much more willing to lash out at contrary points of view.
Stevens (2023) indicated that 63% of students thought that shouting down another person’s
speech to prevent others from hearing them was acceptable to varying degrees; 45% of students
stated that physically blocking access to speakers they viewed as disagreeable was potentially

2
justifiable. Even actual violence was acceptable at times for as many as 27% of students to stop a
speech or campus event (Stevens, 2023), up from 20% the previous year (Stevens, 2022).
Additionally, both right- and left-wing groups within and affiliated with universities have
dramatically increased attempts to disinvite guest speakers from campus: the 18 months between
January 2021 and June 2022 saw 40 such actions, whereas, at the start of the 21st century, it took
over 4 years to reach that number (FIRE, 2023a). Results of a survey conducted after one of
these instances at the University of Southern California (USC) indicated that faculty and students
engaged less in discussions and avoided contentious topics altogether, thereby diminishing the
teaching and learning experience (Marshall Faculty Council, 2021). Taken together, these facts
and figures draw an alarming portrait of the current state of free speech on campuses with trends
going in the wrong direction.
Context and Background of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to understand better why many undergraduate students are
willing to consider violence to suppress speech with which they disagree, particularly oncampus. Frederick Hess, former University of Virginia education professor, and Pedro Noguera,
Dean of the USC Rossier School of Education (2021), described the current campus climate as
one where it is fashionable to insult and renounce people who hold differing thoughts and
opinions rather than to exchange passionately held beliefs with an underlying respect for all
those involved. They also noted that despite societal expectations to the contrary, universities
and particularly their education schools have neither changed this climate nor nurtured
thoughtful debate and discussion on important matters of public interest (Hess & Noguera,
2021).

3
Broader society mirrors this problem. Barron (2018) stated that, in general, Americans
find it difficult to engage in thoughtful discourse about challenging issues. Instead, discussions
on controversial topics revert to what he described as either (a) a sterile, blanket toleration of any
point of view or (b) the forceful, belligerent imposition of one person’s opinions onto another
(Barron, 2018). This societal problem became more severe in times of crisis, such as during the
COVID-19 global pandemic caused information to be limited, evolving, and conflicting (Faris et
al., 2020). Two of the ways in which higher education created this current campus climate are:
(a) identifying groups using derogatory terms and (b) indoctrinating students into specific belief
systems against their will.
Identifying Groups using Derogatory Terms
Educational institutions have fostered intolerance between students by using derogatory
language to identify some of them as being abnormal or inferior. Best (2020) stated that
classifying some students as deviant has always been a part of higher education. Such
classifications enable administration and faculty, particularly sociologists, to cast broad swathes
of their population as outside the mainstream. In response, students in those allegedly deviant
groups refuse the classification and demand inclusion; through these students’ actions, combined
with the passage of time and changes in societal perceptions, universities no longer classify
groups as disparate as homosexuals, hippies, and jazz musicians, among others, as outsiders or
deviants (Best, 2020).
Some members of previously outcast groups and their advocates have gained power
within universities and are resorting to similar acts of derision against other parties. Cooper
(2017), along with Lukianoff and Haidt (2018), point to Morgan’s (1996) “Intersecting Axes of
Privilege, Domination, and Oppression” (p. 107) used by numerous educational institutions in

4
diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a prime example of this. Morgan attempted to build on
the intersectionality work by Crenshaw (1989); however, Morgan used markedly different
language. First, whereas Crenshaw used the term “privileged” 16 times while never using
“oppressed” or “dominated” in her original 1989 paper on intersectionality, Morgan explicitly
framed privileged groups as oppressors and dominators. Second, Morgan linked groups directly
to offensive labels: White to racism, male to sexism, and Gentile to antisemitism, among others.
As such, Morgan implied that all members of these groups suffer from those prejudices and, by
extension, encouraged others to be categorically prejudiced against them despite how individual
Whites, males, or Gentiles might speak and behave while also denying the possibility of any
member with other identities to be racist, sexist, or antisemitic (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018;
Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020). Therefore, Morgan’s constructs and others like them provide
justification and encouragement for members of so-called oppressed groups to dismiss and even
actively suppress the opinions of any person with whom they disagree.
Indoctrinating Students into Specific Belief Systems Against Their Will
In some cases, educational institutions actively create systems and practices with the
explicit goal of imposing their own specific beliefs onto students. Among these include efforts
made by colonizers to assimilate native populations through indoctrination. Brayboy (2006)
stated that the government set up certain schools for Native Americans to preserve the individual
human being by eliminating the “Indian” [sic] within. Lomawaima and McCarty (2002)
mentioned that the government created schools for American Indians to replace native
languages, beliefs, and institutions with Euro-centric ones, leading to the awareness and
understanding of native knowledge to fade. Similar actions occurred at school systems in Canada
(Austen, 2015) and Australia (Hanson et al., 2020).

5
Many American colleges and universities have been using similar tactics to inculcate
politically charged values into new students, particularly as part of mandatory new student
orientations. Lukianoff (2012) cited examples at multiple schools; at one college, a Latina gave
herself a top rating of 10 on a 10-point scale for empowerment, a score which the school staff
expressly rejected because the student’s intersectionality as both a female and an underrepresented minority defined her to be “systemically oppressed” and therefore unable to have the
maximum empowerment she claimed (Lukianoff, 2012, p. 97). Additionally, that Latina
student’s Jewish heritage befuddled those same staff members as to whether it exacerbated or
mitigated her oppression (Lukianoff, 2012). In another example, a school administrator at the
University of Delaware created a program for new students that she intended would leave “a
mental footprint on their consequences” (Kissel, 2009, n.p.), which Lukianoff noted strongly
resembles a quote from the totalitarian villain in Nineteen Eighty-Four: “If you want a picture of
the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever” (Orwell, 1949, p. 239). As such,
school administrators are increasingly putting themselves in situations where they advocate for
free speech they prefer and suppress speech they unilaterally deem offensive or dangerous.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study aims to evaluate the growing intolerance for free speech among
undergraduates on university campuses within the United States. The study utilizes the
Bronfenbrenner (1979) ecological systems theory to understand the challenges faced by these
students navigating free speech and tolerance within the United States. As such, the following
questions guide the study:
• RQ1: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
other undergraduates at the same institution?

6
• RQ2: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
faculty?
• RQ3: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
policies and behaviors of university administrators?
Importance of the Study
Enhancing understanding of these issues has direct implications beyond academia to
American society and culture overall (Lukianoff, 2012; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). Since
Americans are more college-educated now than they ever have been (U.S. Census Bureau,
2022), the values, attitudes, and behaviors of universities and their students, faculty, staff, and
administration have an out-sized influence on all aspects of life, including openness or lack
thereof to a broad range of contrasting opinions, viewpoints, and theories (Lukianoff & Haidt,
2018). Moreover, highly educated people are more likely to self-segregate into groups and
communities that think similarly, isolating both physically and culturally from those with
differing views (Florida & Mellander, 2015; Murray, 2012). This demographic movement results
in group polarization where the community’s views and those of its constituents become more
extreme and less interested in learning about differing opinions, let alone engaging in polite
dialogue (Faris et al., 2020; Iyengar & Westwood, 2015; Sunstein, 1999; Van Swol, 2009).
Social media use has amplified group polarization and its deleterious effects (Cinelli et al.,
2021). Taken together, this physical and virtual self-segregation creates a feedback loop that can
exacerbate the societal challenges to viewpoint diversity and thoughtful disagreement described
by Barron (2018).

7
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) ecological systems theory recognized that person and
environment exert influence on each other and analyzes how layers of the environment affect
adjacent layers. There are five layers: the microsystem, which interacts directly with the person;
the mesosystem, where microsystem elements interact with each other; the exosystem, external
factors, which influence the microsystem; the macrosystem, where broader cultural and societal
effects influence the exosystem; and the chronosystem, how all the systems change over time
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994). Ecological systems theory is useful when evaluating issues
regarding declining free speech and rising cancel culture within higher education. Macrosystems,
like national concepts and laws about free speech, down to exosystems (e.g., university
administrators and social media) and microsystems (e.g., family, friends, and schools) impact
underlying values, which then drive attitudes and, ultimately, behavior (Schwartz, 2012).
This study uses a quantitative analysis of publicly available raw response data from
extant surveys conducted in November 2022 and between January through June 2023.
Respondents include undergraduate students enrolled full-time in 4-year degree programs at
colleges and universities within the United States. Schools represented include small and large
public and private institutions, some of which are historically Black colleges and universities,
women’s colleges and universities, and religiously affiliated colleges and universities.
Definition of Terms
While the general public, media, and academic literature often use many terms related to
this topic, there is no consensus on precise definitions. These same groups do not commonly
know of other terms outside of this context. The following definitions provide clarity for their
use throughout this study.

8
Cancel culture
“[T]he uptick beginning around 2014, and accelerating in 2017 and after, of campaigns to
get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is—or would
be—protected by First Amendment standards and the climate of fear and conformity that has
resulted from this uptick” (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023, p. 31).
Chicago Statement (a.k.a. Chicago Principles)
The declaration originally made by the University of Chicago in 2015; it supports “free
and open inquiry in all matters, [and] it guarantees all members of the University community the
broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn” (Stone et al., 2015, p. 2),
and has since been adopted verbatim or in spirit by other American universities (FIRE, 2024a).
First Amendment
While the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from
curtailing multiple individual liberties, usage for this study primarily refers to the prohibition on
“abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (U.S. Const. amend. I) and relevant extensions
and limitations thereof (U.S. Const. amend. XIV; see also Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023;
Mchangama, 2022).
Founding Fathers
The men who were primarily responsible for providing intellectual and philosophical
foundations for the rights and duties of American government and society, which became
codified into the United State Constitution and its first 10 amendments known collectively as the
Bill of Rights; Morris (1973) specifically names John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander
Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington.
Hate speech

9
Abusive, insulting, threatening, offensive, intimidating, or demeaning speech that
expresses prejudice on the basis of some trait or identity (e.g., ethnicity, race, national original,
religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, health status, veteran status, and more) that may be
illegal depending on jurisdiction (Merriam-Webster, n.d.; Waldron, 2012).
Heckler’s veto
Kalven (1965) coined the term to describe individuals or small groups using their own
speech as a cudgel to loudly prevent or limit the speech of others they deemed offensive or
unacceptable.
Isegoria
Ancient Greek (ἰσηγορία), pertaining to free speech in the context of allowing the
equality of all Athenian citizens to participate in official political debate (Bejan, 2019), best
translated as “the speech of equals before equals” (Gottesman, 2021, p. 175).
Kalven Report (a.k.a. Kalven Principles)
A 1967 statement by the University of Chicago espousing neutrality by its leaders and the
institution as a whole to prevent establishing orthodoxies and preferred points of view, thereby
granting more freedom to individual faculty members and students to pursue and express any
idea they wish (FIRE, 2023b; Kalven et al., 1967; Saiger, 2024); other American universities
have since adopted the Kalven Report in its entirety or made substantially similar statements.
Parrhesia
Ancient Greek (παρρησία), pertaining to free speech in non-governmental, unofficial
capacity: “frank speech” (Saxonhouse, 2005, p. 85), “uninhibited speech” (Mchangama, 2022, p.
12), or “all-saying’ (Bejan, 2019, p. 100).
Political correctness

10
The notion and practice that came to the forefront in the 1980s, advocating that concepts
and languages that politically left-leaning people and groups would find sensitive and offensive,
particularly with regards to issues of race, nationality, and gender, should be suppressed and
even eliminated (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter One introduces the
problem of the decline of free speech and rise in cancel culture within the United States in
general and universities specifically, an overview of the basic concepts of ecological systems
theory as a theoretical framework, the methodology of the study, and key definitions. In addition,
Chapter One outlines the importance of the study, the methodology, and the research questions.
Chapter Two provides a literature review on the history and evolution of free speech culture and
practice within the United States in general and universities and colleges specifically and ends by
putting this information into context with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to create a
conceptual framework for this study. Chapter Three details the quantitative research
methodology used in this study, the underlying data set and its constituent respondents used for
the analyses, and the analytical approach. Chapter Four provides the quantitative analyses with
relevant descriptive and inferential statistics. Finally, Chapter Five details the results of the
quantitative analyses, offers recommendations on how institutions of higher learning in the
United States can improve their free speech climate, and proposes future quantitative and
qualitative research.

11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the underpinnings of free speech
within American colleges and universities, grounded in broader societal contexts. The first
section of this chapter provides important historical background from ancient times through the
beginning of the 21st century. The second section looks at contemporary values, attitudes, and
behaviors about free speech in society and universities in particular. In addition, the second
section covers how those values, attitudes, and behaviors led to modern cancel culture by
discussing the technological and sociological shifts that influenced them, events that accelerated
those shifts, and the related growth of opinions against free speech. Finally, the review evaluates
contemporary influences on free speech on undergraduate students through the lens of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994) ecological systems theory to create a conceptual framework,
thereby providing the foundation for the analysis proposed and completed in subsequent
chapters.
Historical Context of Free Speech Values, Attitudes, and Behaviors
The United States has been the foremost defender of free speech in the world for the past
100 years, but it did not invent the concept. The writing, practices, and philosophies from the
republican era of Rome and the Reformation era of England had noteworthy impacts on free
speech politics and practice in Western civilization, and the intellectually open-minded culture of
the Abbasid Caliphate of the 9th century CE allowed radical and transformative ideas to bloom
and flourish elsewhere (Mchangama, 2022). Yet all free-speech cultures are scions of Greece,
with a lineage from Roman and English thinkers to the American Founding Fathers (Bejan,
2019; Mchangama, 2022; Morris, 1973; Saxonhouse, 2005). Therefore, this section begins by
discussing ancient Athenian attitudes and behaviors relating to free speech before delving into

12
how the original Greek example influenced the cultural and governmental philosophies on which
the Founding Fathers based their free speech principles. The section then narrows its focus to the
United States from its founding to the 20th century before concentrating on the history of free
speech at institutions of higher learning, particularly those in the United States.
The Greek Roots of the American Free Speech Concepts
Throughout history, rulers wrote and enforced laws and codes with the intent of helping
them maintain their power. Until the past century, governments have most often been autocratic,
authoritarian, and often despotic (Herre & Roser, 2023). Dominant social groups strictly
controlled who could hold ideas, who could share them, and even what the ideas themselves
could be, thereby ensuring their subjugation of those they wanted to oppress (Chemerinsky &
Gillman, 2017). Mchangama (2022) mentioned documents from Egypt circa 2350 BCE, laws by
the Hittites between 1650 and 1500 BCE, and passages from the book of Exodus in the Hebrew
Bible as all admonishing people from disagreeing with or dissenting against the king or even
speaking at all to those with higher social status. He went on to describe the 213 BCE decree by
Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, to ban and burn works by Confucius written more than
200 years earlier because, as his historian at the time, Sima Qian, quoted him, “Disagreement
they regards [sic] as noble, and they encourage all the lower orders to fabricate slander”
(Mchangama, 2022, p. 9).
Ancient Athenians were the first to sow the seeds of free speech beginning in the 5th
century BCE, concurrent to when they became the leading Greek city-state and when they
defeated the Persian Empire in battle (Mchangama, 2022). Athenians of that time highly valued
parrhesia (Greek: παρρησία), a term that many people have often loosely translated as “free
speech” but which researchers have said is more appropriately interpreted as “frank speech”

13
(Saxonhouse, 2005, p. 85), “uninhibited speech” (Mchangama, 2022, p. 12), or “all-saying’
(Bejan, 2019, p. 100). Parrhesia manifested as a more active trait associated with an individual
liberty as opposed to modern connotations of free speech as a passive individual right. As such,
parrhesia enabled the citizenry to express their views actively, whatever they were, as they saw
fit (Bejan, 2019). In a 1983 lecture, Foucault (2001) described five required aspects of parrhesia:
• Frankness: The speaker says whatever is on their mind, completely and without
hiding anything.
• Truth: The speaker must know that what they say is objectively true, not merely what
they sincerely think or feel is true.
• Danger: The speaker must be putting themselves at inherent risk by saying the truth,
and therefore, the speech in question required courage to say. To illustrate this,
Foucault (2001) gives the counterexample of a teacher explaining grammar to a
young student as not practicing parrhesia.
• Criticism: The speaker must address other speech or behaviors in a way that counters
or contradicts someone of equal or higher power, including potentially being critical
of oneself. Saxonhouse (2005) further explained that Athenians expected speech to
open and unveil truth via engaging with other Athenians in debate.
• Duty: Compelled speech is not part of parrhesia. The person speaking truth does so of
their own free will out of a sense of personal obligation to themselves or society at
large, despite having a risk-free option to stay silent.
Parrhesia contrasts with isegoria (Greek: ἰσηγορία), another free speech-related term.
Bejan (2019) posited that isegoria focused less on liberty and more on equality, particularly the
equal ability of both rich and poor Athenian citizens to speak when joining official political and

14
governmental discussions and debates. Gottesman (2021) called isegoria a language ideology of
“the speech of equals before equals” (p. 175).
In combination, isegoria and parrhesia were critical in enabling Athens’s participatory
democracy to function effectively. Together, the two concepts empowered Athenians to criticize
fellow citizens, even to the point of offending them (Bejan, 2019; Foucault, 2001), whether those
citizens were acting as individuals or in the collective capacity as the majority of the populous
making decisions for the government (Bejan, 2019; Saxonhouse, 2005). Mchangama (2022)
described how Athenians could speak against their laws while supporting Sparta’s without fear
of reprisal, a privilege Spartans did not have, and he points out that the unfettered ability to
criticize one’s government is still a critical way to evaluate 21st-century democracies. This
overlapping yet distinct relationship between parrhesia and isegoria anticipates the modern
contrast between free speech in societal constructs versus governmental and jurisprudential
constructs in current American society and culture.
For all its positive elements, Athenian democracy was imperfect by 21st-century
standards. Women, slaves, and foreigners were not citizens and therefore, not allowed to vote
despite being a majority of the overall resident population (Mchangama, 2022). More
importantly, citizens in the voting majority could and often did persecute voters in the minority
(Saxonhouse, 2005), meaning parrhesia was “liberty in the form of license, not as a right but an
unstable privilege that the weak enjoyed at the pleasure of the powerful” (Bejan, 2019, p. 101).
At the extreme, Athenians could kill someone whom the majority of the populous deemed to
have violated the limits of parrhesia or isegoria, including their most prominent citizens. Most
notably, Socrates attempted to uncover objective truths via logic and deduction during questionand-answer dialogues with his students; when influential people found some of Socrates’s

15
questions to be improper, they charged him with impiety and corruption of youth, after which he
was eventually tried, found guilty, and forced to commit suicide (Bejan, 2019; Saxonhouse,
2005). Eventually, after less than 300 years, Athenians abandoned democracy, and parrhesia and
isegoria along with it, in favor of autocracy (Mchangama, 2022). Not long after, Athens would
decline in prominence and the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great would eventually
subsume it, and free speech would lie dormant for many centuries.
Despite its limited duration and the inherent imperfections, Athens was unique for its
time. When juxtaposed with the overwhelming number of tyrannical monarchies and autocracies
of the same era, the Athenian democratic form of government enabled by its nascent concepts of
free speech was shocking (Mchangama, 2022; Saxonhouse, 2005). As Mchangama (2022)
pointed out, “For the Athenians, the state did not exist as a separate entity form the people. Free
speech was thus an inherent part of the Athenian political and civic culture” (pp. 12-13). This
combination of democracy and free speech was exceedingly rare for centuries to follow
(Mchangama, 2022; Saxonhouse, 2005). Nearly 2 millennia later, the American Founding
Fathers would remember the lessons learned from the best and worst of Athenian democracy and
free speech and use those lessons to shape a new nation.
American Traditions regarding Free Speech
No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right
of speech. . . . Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions
has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they
first of all strike down.
—Frederick Douglass, A Plea for Freedom of Speech in Boston: An Address Delivered in
Boston, Massachusetts on December 9, 1860

16
The example of Athenian democracy and philosophy, particularly with regard to free
speech, directly influenced and inspired the American Founding Fathers. Among them, John
Adams and Alexander Hamilton received classical educations, which included: studying Greek
history, learning the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and becoming fluent enough
in the language to be able to read those philosophers’ texts in the original Greek (Adams &
Jefferson, 1988; Chernow, 2004; Ferling, 1992). The same and more is true of Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison. Jefferson had a vast collection of Greek texts in his library and cited them in
his writings (Adams & Jefferson, 1988; Ellis, 1997). Madison studied at Princeton under
university President John Witherspoon, a noted scholar and proponent of Greek history and
philosophy and a signer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence in his own right (Morrison,
2005; Riemer, 2007). Benjamin Franklin’s formal education was much less rigorous, but he
earned international acclaim as a scientist, inventor, and polymath who voraciously consumed
and internalized the wisdom of Athenian philosophers (Franklin, 2003; Isaacson, 2003).
These men would write eloquently about the importance of freedom of expression to the
13 American colonies and eventually to the creation of an independent American government,
imbuing their arguments with their knowledge of Athenian democracy and the free speech that
supported it. For example, when Franklin was only 16, he published many essays under the
pseudonym Silence Dogood. In one of those essays, Franklin (1722) posited that wisdom could
not exist without freedom of thought and that liberty could not exist without freedom of speech,
a right everyone deserves as long exercising it does not violate other people’s rights in the
process. He ended by saying, “Freedom of Speech is ever the Symptom, as well as the Effect of a
good Government” (Franklin, 1722, n.p.). Along similar lines, Adams wrote in 1765, “Liberty
cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right . . . and a

17
desire to know” (p. 455). In 1787, Adams mentioned Aristotle specifically while defending his
plea that the United States should educate its children on all the philosophies underpinning
freedom, including free speech (Adams, 1851).
As much as the Founding Fathers venerated the Greeks, they were also well aware of the
limitations of the Greek version of direct democracy and the fragile nature of free speech within
that form of government. As Mchangama (2022) observed, Hamilton and Madison were
intensely wary of the ever-present possibility of their contemporary populations’ majority
devolving into tyranny, much as Athenian society eventually did. Madison, Hamilton, and John
Jay would advocate in The Federalist Papers for a federal republic, a distinctly different kind of
government than the Greeks had. Madison (1787/2003) argued in Federalist No. 10 that a large
enough republic would preclude the tyranny of the majority by inherently creating many
minority factions. Each of these factions would be comprised of mixtures of the population that
would be constantly evolving as the issues of the day changed, and none of which individually
had enough consistent majority power to become tyrannical itself (Madison, 1787/2003). In
Federalist No. 55, Madison (1788/2003) countered criticism that this republican idea and the
proposed House of Representatives would be too small for a country the size of the United States
by pointing out the pitfalls of a larger assembly like the direct democracy of Athens. To do this,
Madison (1788/2003) juxtaposed the tyranny of the Athenian majority against the famous freespeaking boundary-pushing philosopher whom they executed: “[I]n all very numerous
assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from
reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have
been a mob” (Madison, 1788/2003, p. 192).

18
Jefferson and Hamilton were also influential in forming a government that highly valued
free speech. Jefferson (1787) held freedom of expression and the right of the people to be well
informed in such high regard that he famously wrote, “Were it left to me to decide whether we
should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should
not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” (Jefferson, 1787/1950, p. 50). Hamilton wrote in
Federalist No. 84 against the notion of guaranteeing in the U.S. Constitution explicit rights and
freedoms that citizens would have, as he feared that doing so would lead some people to believe
that if the framers of the Constitution left anything out, they did so purposefully and therefore
did not wish those aspects protected (Hamilton, 1788/2003). Moreover, Hamilton felt so strongly
that such liberties, including freedom of speech, were inherently and inextricably a fabric of
American values in general and the form of government created in the Constitution that such
guarantees were unnecessary (Hamilton, 1788/2003). Both Jefferson and Hamilton would
eventually take significant roles in the shaping of the first federal government under President
George Washington, and they would hold the top two chairs in Washington’s cabinet.
Ultimately, however, the faction of Founding Fathers who wanted a Bill of Rights added
to the original Constitution prevailed, and it was Madison who wrote the actual text of the First
Amendment. It states in its entirety, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances” (U.S. Const. amend. I). Madison and the other framers of the Bill of
Rights originally limited the scope of The First Amendment, intending it to be relevant to federal
laws only and unenforceable on individual states until the 14th Amendment passed in 1868
incorporated those rights to all levels of American government (U.S. Const. amend. XIV).

19
Additionally, as a matter of common law, the First Amendment did not protect all forms of
written and verbal expression, leaving illegal some speech such as slander, libel, obscenity, and
sedition (Riemer, 2007). That said, the existence of the First Amendment protection from federal
laws surpassed anything ancient Athens, republican Rome, Georgian England, or any other
government was willing to do to enumerate and guarantee the freedoms of its citizens
(Mchangama, 2022).
Despite all of the Founding Fathers’ exhortations in support of free expression and as
much as they pushed beyond the original Athenian example, their views on free speech were
more constrained than what Americans currently enjoy. Most notably, they reserved for the
government special privileges against criticism, even truthful criticism, by justifying such
restrictions as important for good public order (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). The most
egregious example was The Sedition Act of 1798 passed on the insistence of Adams while he
was President. On its face, the act criminalized false or malicious statements about the federal
government in order to maintain security during the undeclared naval war with the French;
however, in practice, Adams used it to prosecute many of his political opponents, and Jefferson
publicly denigrated Adams and the law for trampling on free speech rights (McNamara, 2024).
Americans disliked that law, along with the related Alien Acts, so much that they elected
Jefferson as President instead of Adams in 1800 (Mchangama, 2022). Ironically, Jefferson’s
previous objections to Adams’ use of The Sedition Act against enemies did not stop Jefferson
from similarly persecuting his own opponents once he held the highest office. Most notably,
Jefferson attacked the political writer James Callendar, who popularized and amplified the sinceconfirmed rumor that Jefferson had a relationship with and ultimately fathered children with
Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves (Gordon-Reed, 1997). Even Franklin had similar proclivities

20
regarding anti-government speech, best exemplified in his 1758 arguments asserting so-called
legislative privilege to justify stifling opinions by a gentleman who published an editorial
criticizing the Pennsylvania Assembly (Mchangama, 2022).
This early 19th-century conceptualization of free speech, liberal for its age yet intolerant
of speech critical of government, remained mostly unchanged through the early 1900s before
coming to a head in the decision Schenck v. United States (1919). In it, the Supreme Court of the
United States (SCOTUS) affirmed the conviction of Charles Schenck of criminal obstruction of
the military draft for distributing flyers encouraging men to resist being forced to fight in World
War I. Writing for a unanimous court, Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously noted,
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in
a theatre and causing a panic” (Schenck v. United States, 1919, p. 52). That phrase has become
infamously misunderstood and even purposefully misused over the next century to justify any
restriction on free speech, even under dubious conditions (Ginsburg, 1972; White, 2018, 2022).
The case represented the nadir of SCOTUS opinions against free speech, and Holmes quickly
changed his mind after Schenck, portending the major expansion of free speech rights that was to
come in the next 100 years.
Important United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence expanding Free Speech
As 1919 drew to a close, SCOTUS would begin growing free speech protections in
unprecedented ways. Mere months after the Schenck decision, SCOTUS ruled on a similar case
upholding the conviction of defendants who criticized the production of war materials (Abrams
v. United States, 1919). Holmes, this time, wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Associate
Justice Louis Brandeis, in which Holmes advocated that broadening free speech and allowing for

21
a greater range of opinions, particularly those critical of the government, was extremely
valuable:
[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to
believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the
ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is
the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that
truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. (Abrams v.
United States, 1919 [Holmes, O. W., dissenting], p. 250)
This conceptualization, popularly called the “marketplace of ideas” (Blasi, 2005, p. 1), became
the bedrock for the greatest expansion of free speech protections the world has ever seen.
In a series of landmark cases, SCOTUS created a free speech landscape so broad that the
easiest way to describe it was to enumerate the few forms of speech not protected by the First
Amendment. Writing for a nearly unanimous court in United States v. Stevens (2010), Chief
Justice John Roberts looked back on the relevant jurisprudence and listed five of those
exceptions. As White (2022) pointed out, Roberts’s list in Stevens was actually incomplete, and
White described four other well-established exceptions that SCOTUS had noted elsewhere and
repeatedly upheld. In total therefore, there are nine types of speech unprotected by the First
Amendment, each with specific conditions attached that laws or actions must meet in order for
the speaker in question to lose free speech protections:
• Fighting words (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942)
• Speech integral to criminal conduct (Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 1949)
• Defamation, including slander and libel (Beauharnais v. Illinois, 1952)
• Obscenity (Roth v. United States, 1957)

22
• Incitement to violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)
• True threats (Watts v. United States, 1969)
• Fraud (Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 1976)
• Child pornography (New York v. Ferber, 1982)
• Speech under certain government employment contexts (Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006)
The fighting words exceptions is particularly critical to understanding free speech and cancel
culture on American campuses.
Additionally, while Roberts cited the oldest and most seminal cases that confirmed the
restrictions and established their initial boundaries, other cases on the same topics would clarify,
re-define, or, in some cases, re-expand those rights. For example, despite the defamation
restriction outlined in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), SCOTUS subsequently became more
tolerant of untrue and potentially defamatory speech which was clearly parody (Hustler
Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 1988) or was directed at any public figure (New York Times v.
Sullivan, 1964), even if those persons were not governmental officials (Curtis Publishing Co. v.
Butts, 1967) or only public or famous in a limited capacity (Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 1974).
Socha (2004) described how these protections have become so tightly woven into the fabric of
American society and culture that Americans easily take them for granted.
SCOTUS has also made multiple rulings vehemently confirming that compelled speech is
not free speech and, therefore, anathema to First Amendment concepts and protections. In West
Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the court held that a public school could
not compel its students to violate their religious beliefs or freedom of conscience by being
required to salute the flag or recite the pledge of allegiance, thereby ruling that forcing
individuals to participate in patriotic rituals against their will violated their First Amendment

23
rights. Three decades later, the court held that states that forced individuals to display statesponsored messages on their personal property, such as license plates, impermissibly compelled
the speech of those individuals and, therefore, violated the First Amendment (Wooley v.
Maynard, 1977). More recently, the court ruled that the government cannot compel organizations
that receive government funding to adopt and express certain viewpoints with which those
organizations disagreed (Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society
International, Inc., 2013), and that unions cannot require public sector employees to subsidize
speech with which they disagreed via forcing those employees to pay union dues (Janus v.
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 2018). With these
important rulings and others like them, SCOTUS reaffirmed that Americans’ right to maintain
their silence is as important as their freedom to speak their mind, channeling a critical aspect of
Athenian parrhesia formulated millennia prior.
SCOTUS has balanced recognizing expansive free speech rights by acknowledging that
the government has a reasonable right to restrict the time, place, and manner in which people can
exercise those rights. For example, the court ruled in Clark v. Community for Creative NonViolence (1984) against a protest group wanting to set up a tent city in public areas of
Washington, D.C. In doing so, SCOTUS upheld a National Park Service rule that precluded
camping in certain places, such as the National Mall and Lafayette Park, as a valid time, place,
and manner restriction (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 1984). To clearly
evaluate whether such restrictions justifiably impinge upon the speaker’s First Amendment
rights, the court created a three-part test in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989):
1. Are the restrictions content-neutral?
2. Are the restrictions narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest?

24
3. Do they leave open ample alternate channels for communicating the speaker’s
message?
If any of the answers to those questions were No, then SCOTUS or other federal judges
would deem the law or regulation would unconstitutional. In Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors
of the University of Virginia (1995), the court ruled that the university had violated the content
neutrality rule and, therefore, the First Amendment by denying funding to a Christian student
publication while providing funds to other student groups. Likewise, in Matal v. Tam (2017),
SCOTUS ruled in favor of Simon Tam, an Asian American who wished to register a trademark
for his rock band, “The Slants,” as an empowering gesture to reclaim a derogatory term. The
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied Tam’s trademark request on the grounds that
the term “slants” (Matal v. Tam, 2017, p. 1) was offensive. Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote
a unanimous opinion for the court which rebuked the USPTO and declared that the government
could not prevent speech simply because it disapproved of the ideas expressed, thereby affirming
the importance of content and viewpoint neutrality (Matal v. Tam, 2017). Taken together, these
narrowly defined restrictions represent a unique set of American values for free speech on which
the country based traditional attitudes and culture on academic freedom and open inquiry.
History of Free Speech at Universities through 2014
The importance and primacy of free speech, academic freedom, and free inquiry within
universities have evolved and grown over time. In Medieval Europe and the Middle East,
Christian and Islamic religious organizations founded almost all universities and other
institutions of higher learning (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). While these institutions would
include subjects like mathematics, science, philosophy, grammar, and rhetoric within their
curricula, their primary purpose was to indoctrinate students with religious ideals and discuss and

25
disseminate theological knowledge within a relatively defined set of acceptable boundaries
(Ridder-Symoens, 1992).
In Europe, this trend began to change in the 1600s. Chemerinsky and Gillman (2017)
note that this coincided with English writer John Milton arguing in favor of greater tolerance for
dissenting opinions and a willingness to challenge established orthodoxies. The Royal Society of
London for Improving Natural Knowledge was the epitome of such an institution (Chemerinsky
& Gillman, 2017; Dyson, 2015), best exemplified by choosing the phrase Nullius in verba (Latin
for “take nobody’s word for it”) as their motto (The Royal Society, n.d.). The organization would
count luminaries such as Christopher Wren, John Locke, and Gottfried Leibniz among its
fellows. In addition, The Royal Society would publish paradigm-shifting works such as Isaac
Newton’s seminal Principia Mathematica, which revolutionized physics, astronomy, and math,
and Experiments and Observations on Electricity, which compiled and disseminated the relevant
findings of Benjamin Franklin (The Royal Society, n.d.).
That said, American universities of the same era had not yet seen the proverbial free
speech light and their primary raison d’etre remained teaching and spreading of established
Christian orthodoxies of the time. Theological conflict within universities often led to the
dissenters forming new universities, as was the case when Harvard’s sixth president, Increase
Mather, supported the creation of Yale (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Mather House, n.d.). A
later rift between different groups at Yale led to the founding of Dartmouth (Childs, 1957).
American universities did not begin to gain a free speech culture until the second half of
the 19th century. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton became more secular and less sectarian, and new
universities across the country, such as Cornell, Johns Hopkins, the University of Chicago,
Stanford, and the University of California, would not flinch at the thought of teaching potentially

26
controversial content like Darwin’s Origin of the Species and the theory of evolution (Hofstadter
& Smith, 1961). Many of these same colleges started establishing more academic freedom by
giving faculty the authority to determine curriculum and course content, whereas administrators,
donors, and politicians previously held such power (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Cole, 2009).
In 1902, the first president of the University of Chicago, William Rainey Harper, created a creed
that would form the bedrock of that school’s philosophy and which remains to the present time:
“[T]he principle of complete freedom of speech on all subjects has from the beginning been
regarded as fundamental in the University of Chicago . . . this principle can neither now nor at
any future time be called into question.” (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017, pp. 58-59). By 1915,
prominent faculty throughout the country founded the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) to protect the interests of its members, particularly with regard to academic
freedom and free speech (AAUP, n.d.; Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). The Association
published a declaration reiterating that any faculty member should have the right to make their
thoughts and opinions known to anyone on or off campus “without fear or favor” (AAUP, 1915,
n.p.).
Even though Chicago and the AAUP set examples and precedents, other universities
were slow to adopt similar credos, let alone act on them. As late as the 1950s, as McCarthyism
was fomenting fear of communists within the United States, schools such as the University of
California, Harvard, and Yale made public and clear declarations stating that communist
sympathizers would not be welcome at their universities (Aby, 2007; Schrecker, 1980). Even the
Association of American Universities, an organization of the most prestigious universities in the
United States, released a statement making it clear that communists would not be welcome on
their members’ faculty (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Schrecker, 1980).

27
The next major shift occurred in the 1960s. As the Vietnam War became increasingly
unpopular and the civil rights movement grew in prominence, political activism for left-wing
causes became the norm on American college campuses (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). The
quintessential example was the Free Speech Movement that started at the University of
California (UC), Berkeley, after its students opposed their school’s restrictions regarding oncampus political activities, particularly those with left-wing sentiments. This development led to
escalating levels of protests and rallies demanding that students receive constitutional rights on
campus, eventually forcing the university’s senior administration to remove those restrictions
(UC Berkeley, n.d.).
SCOTUS, during that same time, affirmed First Amendment protections on university
campuses. In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the court ruled that public employees,
including public school teachers, maintained their First Amendment rights to speak on matters of
public importance. Then in 1972, SCOTUS ruled that the First Amendment applied to American
college students with full force. Writing for a unanimous court, Associate Justice Lewis F.
Powell, Jr., wrote, “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the
community of American schools . . . [A] college classroom with its surrounding environs is peculiarly
the ‘marketplace of ideas’” (Healy v. James, 1972). California eventually created the Leonard Law
which extended the same protections from Pickering and Healy to private universities in the state
(California Education Code, 1992), and other states, including New Jersey (New Jersey Statutes, 2020)
and Massachusetts (Massachusetts General Laws, n.d.) have done the same.
The climate for free speech remained robust until the 1980s, at which point “political
correctness” (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023, p. 39) became popular, and university administrators
and many faculty members were increasingly likely to be politically left-wing. Spurred by the

28
early proponents of critical theory, schools nationwide—including the University of Connecticut,
the University of Michigan, and Stanford Law School—began passing speech codes to ban
anything they considered hateful, racist, or sexist. (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Critical theorists
actively upended the historical narrative, claiming free speech hurt oppressed peoples instead of
helping them (Beausoleil, 2019; Bérubé & Ruth, 2022; Brayboy, 2006; Delgado, 1993; Delgado
& Stefancic, 2018; Matsuda, 1993; Tsesis, 2000). Their influence led the administration of the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to suspend two student editors of the school
newspaper in 1988 for publishing a cartoon that lampooned affirmative action in admissions
(Johnson, 1988; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). A California State University, Northridge (CSUN)
student journalist who wrote an editorial in his school newspaper to protest the UCLA
suspensions, particularly since affirmative action was a reasonable topic of political discussion,
was himself suspended by his newspaper’s publisher, a CSUN journalism professor (Johnson,
1988). By the 1990s, over 350 American institutions of higher learning chose to adopt speech
codes that explicitly restricted hate speech (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017). It was only when
federal courts began declaring such speech codes unconstitutional did they decline in number
and mostly disappear (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
Attacks on free speech continued into the 21st century from both the political left and
right, depending on the prevailing politics of a given community or university. Lukianoff and
Schlott (2023) noted that influential or powerful conservative voices denigrated or censored
faculty who expressed opposition to the post-9/11 global war on terror. At the same time,
progressive faculty and administrators continued to use critical theory mores to persecute anyone
they perceived to be denigrating a so-called oppressed category of people, even if the accused
were actually doing the opposite (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). In one such example, Brandeis

29
University found a faculty member guilty of racial harassment after someone complained that he
said the word “wetback” in a 2007 class, despite the fact that he explicitly described it to be a
denigrating term; as punishment, the university gave him mandatory sensitivity training and
assigned an assistant provost to monitor his class (Duke Law, n.d.-a).
In another case, administrators at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis
(IUPUI) found Keith John Sampson, a 58-year-old White janitor and undergraduate student,
guilty of racial harassment for bringing a book about the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) onto campus
(Sampson, 2008). In fact, the book was in the collection of the university’s library and was
actually an anti-KKK story about University of Notre Dame students who drove the KKK offcampus and out of their town after having beaten them and destroyed their robes (Sampson,
2008). Despite this, Sampson’s union representative likened having the book to bringing
pornography to work and warned him that the school could fire him (The Associated Press,
2008; Sampson, 2008). The university’s chief affirmative action officer never spoke to Sampson
or examined his book (Sampson, 2008), but still accused him of using “extremely poor
judgement by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent
subject in the presence of [his] black [sic] co-workers” (The Associated Press, 2008, n.p.;
Rabinowitz, 2008, n.p.). The university’s chancellor eventually apologized to Sampson for the
misunderstanding, but only after receiving negative publicity from media outlets including The
Wall Street Journal, and letters from organizations, including the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) and FIRE (The Associated Press, 2008; Rabinowitz, 2008, n.p.).
Three additional speech-related developments occurred in the first decade of the 21st
century. The first was that references to “microaggressions” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 271) and
increasing use of “trigger warnings” (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018, p. 6) were gaining popularity,

30
enabling administrators to give students another basis for claims of alleged verbal violence on
campus (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). The second was the proliferation of politically one-sided and
distinctly critical theory-influenced orientation programs that functioned more like indoctrination
sessions (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023), including the University of Delaware program previously
described by Kissel (2009). Finally, administrators created bias response teams that had the
power to receive anonymous reports of alleged discrimination, whether microaggressions or
macroaggressions and even for clearly protected speech, and who conducted subsequent
investigations without due process or transparency (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). All these
developments, combined with important societal changes looming on the horizon, would set the
stage for the decline of free speech and the rise of cancel culture that was to come.
Current Trends: 2014 to the Present
This section uses the history of free speech in society in general and universities in
particular, to gain an understanding of free speech over this most recent decade. It begins by
providing an overview of contemporary free speech attitudes in the United States juxtaposed
with those in other countries. It also offers criticisms from outside and within the United States
for the uniquely American deference to so-called hate speech, as well as counterarguments for
those criticisms. This section concludes with a description of the most recent developments at
American universities, describing how societal inputs such as the rise of social media, the
election of Donald Trump as the 45th U.S. president, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the response
to the racial protests and riots of 2020 have affected the culture, climate, and practice of free
speech by university students, faculty, and administrators. This section closes by briefly
acknowledging free speech challenges in the wake of the Hamas murder and kidnapping of
Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israeli response.

31
Overview: Contemporary Attitudes Towards Free Speech in the United States and Beyond
Americans currently enjoy the most robust collection of free speech and free expression
rights on Earth, and they value those rights. A 2015 study by the Pew Research Center showed
that the United States is the most supportive of free expression among 38 total countries included
in the research, and that Americans are most likely to say that it is “very important that people
can say what they want without state/government censorship in our country” (Wike & Simmons,
2015, p. 4). O’Neil (2012) recalled former President Barrack Obama’s 2012 address to the
United Nations (UN) when he bragged to the representatives in attendance about the distinct and
expansive respect for free speech in the United States. In contrast, the UN Human Rights
Council, mere weeks before Obama’s speech, passed a resolution creating an international
standard restricting certain kinds of anti-religious speech, a standard the United States would
almost certainly not permit (O’Neil, 2012). The rest of the world values free speech differently
and is willing to apply more restrictions on speech than does the United States.
At the same time, the United States does not maintain a monopoly on valuing free speech
or in codifying free speech protections into its laws. In a study jointly commissioned by the
European think-tank Justitia, in collaboration with Columbia University and Aarhus University,
Norway and Denmark both placed above the United States in a ranking of 33 countries
measuring how much each of their citizens value free speech (Skaaning & Krishnarajan, 2021).
Additionally, the UN Declaration of Human Rights included this statement in its Article 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations, 1948, n.p.). Mchangama (2022) stated
that to ensure the universal nature of the declaration, the committee in charge of writing the

32
document included representatives of 18 countries from varying political, cultural, and religious
points of view.
The most noteworthy difference between the United States and the rest of the world
regarding free speech rights has involved so-called hate speech. The vast majority of countries
outside the United States have criminalized such speech (Alkiviadu et al., 2020). While Denmark
ranked above the United States in the Justitia study, Section 266(b) of the Danish penal code
punishes anyone who threatens, insults, or degrades a group on the basis of their race, national or
ethnic origin, or belief with a fine and potential jail time of up to 2 years (Weinstein, 2011). In
Canada, Section 319 of the Criminal Code allows the government to imprison someone for up to
2 years if a court finds them guilty of “publicly inciting” or “promoting” hatred of an identifiable
group (Canadian Criminal Code, 1985). More recently, the Canadian Parliament began debating
a new Online Harms Act bill which, if it were to become law, would give judges the right to give
maximum sentences of life imprisonment to anyone convicted of promoting or advocating
genocide and 5 years in jail for promoting other forms of hatred (Bill C-63, 2024). Waldron
(2012) points out examples of comparable laws in Germany, New Zealand, and the United
Kingdom.
Beyond specific laws and the actions of their government, Americans themselves are
different from the rest of the world in that they are much more likely to be permissive for socalled hate speech. Wike and Simmons (2015) indicated the following: 77% of Americans agree
that “People should be able to make statements that are offensive to your religion or beliefs
publicly,” more than double the 35% of respondents from other countries worldwide; 67% of
Americans agree that “People should be able to make statements that are offensive to minority
group publicly,” nearly double compared to 35% worldwide. In contrast, Americans are more

33
similar to those in other countries on other aspects of contentious speech: as Wike and Simmons
(2015) describe, people in the United States versus other parts of the world were more similar in
their opinions about being able to “Criticize the government’s policies” (95% in the United
States compared to 80% global median) or “Call for violent protests” (44% in the United States
compared to 25% global median).
People in favor of making hate speech illegal and punishable by fines and jail time have
no problem declaring it unworthy of protection. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said
when announcing the organization’s strategy and plan of action on hate speech: “Addressing hate
speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech
from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination,
hostility, and violence, which is prohibited under international law” (Guterres, 2019, n.p.). Some
American writers and scholars, particularly those who adhere to variations of critical theory, feel
the same way and find the current First Amendment jurisprudence or prevailing societal
tolerance of hate speech out of date, out of touch, or both (Beausoleil, 2019; Bérubé & Ruth,
2022; Delgado & Stefancic, 2018, Roth, 2019; Tsesis, 2000).
Five arguments explain and advocate for hate speech criminalization or at least regulation
in society in general and on college and university campuses specifically. The first is that hate
speech causes harm, both mental and physiological, to the people and groups targeted
(Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Delgado, 1993; Delgado & Stefancic, 2018; Matsuda, 1993;
Roth, 2019). The second argument is that laws precluding hate speech primarily try to protect the
dignity of the individual, thereby enabling those targeted by hate speech to maintain confidence
in society and its laws (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Delgado, 1993). Third, discrimination is
already illegal, and laws against it are considered constitutional, and since hate speech is a form

34
of discrimination, American colleges and universities have the legal right to suppress and prevent
hate speech to ensure students from traditionally disadvantaged groups do not feel unwelcome or
that their education is interrupted (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Lawrence, 1993; MacKinnon,
1996). Fourth, hate speech can and should be a separate and distinct exception to free speech
protections, just as obscenity, defamation, fraud, and other generally recognized exceptions are
illegal (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Lawrence, 1993).
The fifth, uniquely American argument in favor of criminalizing or regulating hate
speech is that it falls under the “fighting words” exception of First Amendment protection
described previously. As Chemerinsky and Gillman (2017) explain, the Chaplinsky ruling
recognized two instances where one person can construe another’s speech as fighting words: (a)
the speech will probably cause a violent response towards the speaker, and (b) the speech is an
insult likely to inflict immediate emotional harm. Therefore, if a person were to assume that the
first argument above, which justifies hate speech restrictions, is true and that speech causes real
psychological and physical harm, then that same person can also plausibly argue that a violent
response is reasonable and justified.
For the defenders of preventing hate speech from becoming punishable by law, there are
four primary counterarguments. The first goes back to the concept of the marketplace of ideas,
that having more information is always better than less information for a free society to function
at its best, and that increasing the quantity of speech ultimately allows society at large to sort
good ideas from bad instead of giving government that power (Abrams v. United States, 1919
[Holmes, O. W., dissenting]; Blasy, 2005; Healy v. James, 1972; Stone et al., 2015). The second
argument is that people’s perceptions of what is and can qualify as hateful or offensive speech or
concepts change with time (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Mchangama, 2022). Steven Pinker

35
(2015), Harvard cognitive scientist and co-president of the university’s Council on Academic
Freedom, noted:
[E]verything we know about the world—the age of our civilization, species, planet, and
universe; the stuff we’re made of; the laws that govern matter and energy; the workings
of the body and brain—came as insults to the sacred dogma of the day. (n.p.)
The third argument is the notion that determining what kind of language people can
construe as hate speech is entirely subjective. Throughout history and across the globe today, that
subjectivity has allowed those in power to use hate speech laws to imprison opponents by
classifying their dissenting opinions as hate, even in current democracies such as India and
Hungary (Mchangama, 2022). Because of that, disadvantaged and oppressed people have
historically benefited the most from the broadest definitions of free speech and have consistently
suffered the most from so-called hate speech laws, beliefs, and practices (Chemerinsky &
Gillman, 2017; Lukianoff, 2012; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023; Mchangama, 2022). Foreshadowing
the SCOTUS decision in Matal v. Tam (2017), which allowed a musician to call his band a name
that many people, including the musician himself, considered disparaging to Asians and Asian
Americans, Associate Justice John M. Harlan II wrote for SCOTUS in a case 46 years earlier,
“one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric” (Cohen v. California, 1971).
Finally, the fourth argument is that if someone considers hate speech to be fighting words
because the specific content inflicts immediate emotional harm, that person is also sanctioning
and even encouraging any listener’s response to be violent. Dershowitz (2021) noted that
governments and individuals throughout history have used violence to prevent or punish speech
they have disliked, and that “assassination is the ultimate form of censorship” (p. 81).
Chemerinsky and Gillman (2017) stated that the mere threat of violence will unjustly silence the

36
speaker regardless of the content, validity, or merit of the original speech. In fact, SCOTUS has
never used the fighting words exception to overturn a conviction for a violent crime
(Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017), and the court has actually narrowed the permissibility of
fighting words in three ways:
1. The alleged fighting words must apply directly to another person and not a group
(Cohen v. California, 1971; Texas v. Johnson, 1989).
2. Laws prohibiting fighting words must not be vague or too broad (Gooding v. Wilson,
1972).
3. Laws targeting fighting words must be specific yet viewpoint neutral, and prohibiting
some fighting words but not others would be unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St.
Paul, 1992).
In a unanimous opinion for the court, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia noted the
inconsistency in the design of the ordinance in question in R.A.V., which led SCOTUS to
overturn it:
[T]he ordinance applies only to “fighting words” that insult, or provoke violence, “on the
basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” Displays containing abusive invective, no
matter how vicious or severe are permissible unless they are addressed to one of the
specific disfavored topics. Those who wish to use “fighting words” in connection with
other ideas—to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union
membership, or homosexuality—are not covered (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 1992, p.
391).

37
2014-2024: The Rise of Social Media, Donald Trump, the Events of 2020, and Beyond
While this section of the review gathered and evaluated a broad swathe of research and
publications on the topics of this study, it repeatedly overlapped with and inevitably draws from
one recent compendium which thoroughly investigated those underlying topics at hand: The
Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All—But
There is a Solution by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott (2023). The book necessarily forms the
backbone of this chapter and especially this subsection and provides multiple jumping-off points
for further research; therefore, this portion of the literature review cites Lukianoff and Schlott
most often in conjunction with the works they reference. At the same time, this study builds on
Lukianoff and Schlott, juxtaposing their conclusions with alternate points of view, and
eventually focuses more narrowly on the research questions posed in Chapter One, referencing
other sources in the process.
By 2014, a critical mass of students, faculty, and administration began to actively
question the wisdom and benefits of having a strong free speech culture combined with robust
laws and regulations protecting free speech. Modern cancel culture began with the rise of social
media, which enabled anyone to advocate repeatedly and en masse that people who said or wrote
inappropriate things, shared potentially offensive ideas, or held allegedly wrong beliefs should be
de-platformed or worse (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Writers and academics, even those with
politically left-wing track records, who opposed such practices found their ideas dismissed
because they were branded as right adjacent, soft right, conservative, or even far right in ad
hominem accusations by more dogmatic and extremist politically progressive attackers
(Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Far-left academics have been actively derisive of free speech, best
exemplified by professor and author Stanley Fish, who argued that “free speech is not an

38
academic value” (Fish, 2019, p.106) or even that it is “a political prize” (Fish, 1994, p. 102), only
of value if and when it serves a given person’s political purposes.
Demonstrations and riots in the summer of 2020 protesting the racial injustice of the
killings of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor, among others, further
emboldened those people wanting to stifle free speech. Bérubé and Ruth (2021) set out the
arguments for this point of view in their book It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the
Future of Academic Freedom. They expressed intense skepticism and doubt for complaints about
the existence of cancel culture, dismissing it as a “right-wing moral panic” (Bérubé & Ruth,
2021, p.14; see also Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023, p. 51). Norris (2021) expressed similar
sentiments in her widely cited journal article, “Cancel Culture: Myth or Reality?” before
acknowledging that there might be indirect silencing of people and their opinions. Other
scholars, newspaper editorials, and writers agreed that cancel culture did not actually exist
(Clark, 2020; Fallon, 2021; Hagi, 2019; Kovalik, 2021; Lofton, 2023) or made the related claim
that the broader free speech crisis was a myth (Beauchamp, 2018; Ladd, 2017; Malik, 2019;
Sachs, 2018a; Sachs, 2018b; Smith, 2020; Yglesias, 2018).
The facts bely these claims and arguments which deny the existence, growth, and
expansion of a free speech crisis and cancel culture. Attempts by both right- and left-wing groups
to disinvite guest speakers from appearing at universities increased in frequency by 267%
between 2004 and 2022 (FIRE, 2023a). Similarly, in 2020, FIRE reviewed 1,530 cases in which
universities threatened student and faculty members with some form of punitive measure. This
caseload nearly doubled the 807 incidences in 2015 (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Among the
many recent examples that exist, three come to the forefront.

39
The first example involves Richard Taylor, an adjunct professor and graduate student at
St. John’s University, who gave a September 2020 lecture on global trade in which he discussed
how the Chinese need for Bolivian silver spurred world-wide trade, eventually impacting global
biodiversity, politics, economics, the environment, and health (Duke Law, n.d.-b; Lukianoff &
Schlott, 2023). Taylor presented the history along with both positive and negative repercussions
using 46 presentation slides, with the final slide asking the question, “Do the positives justify the
negatives?” (Taylor, 2020, p.46). After the lecture, one student filed a bias complaint with the
university, alleging that Taylor required students to create pros and cons of the transatlantic slave
trade and provide a justification for slavery. A campus activist with the Instagram account
@sjuradicals spread news of the complaint (Duke Law, n.d.-b), accusing Taylor of being a
“dangerous threat to the education of our student body” (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023, p. 47) and
encouraging the activist’s followers to send additional bias complaints using a completed
template to “bring meaningful justice to this heinous crime committed by Dr. Taylor” (Duke
Law, n.d.-b, n.p.; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023, p. 47). Taylor eventually received 300 bias
complaints, 1,000% more than the number of students in his class (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
University administrators removed Taylor from his class, eventually found him to have violated
the school’s anti-harassment policy and banned him from guest lecturing in other classes (Duke
Law, n.d.-b; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
The second case involved Gordon Klein, a UCLA Anderson School of Management
professor whose students asked him to change how he graded Black student exams in the wake
of the George Floyd murder; he declined in an email that referenced Martin Luther King, Jr.
(Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). UCLA suspended him, and Klein’s dean sent an email to the UCLA
Anderson community in which he described Klein’s response to his students as “an abuse of

40
power” (Bernardo, 2020, n.p.) and accused Klein of having no regard for the school’s values and
principles (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). A subsequent change.org petition received 21,272
signatures, calling for Klein to lose his job because of his “extremely insensitive, dismissive, and
woefully racist response to his students’ request for empathy and compassion during a time of
civil unrest” (Bains, 2020, n.p.; see also Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023, p. 49).
The third example is of USC Marshall School of Business professor and noted business
communication expert Greg Patton (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). In an August 2020 lecture to
graduate business students on international and cross-cultural business communication, Patton
described the habit of native Mandarin speakers in China to repeatedly use the filler word
“nèige” (Chinese: 那个, pronounced NAY-guh, translated to “that”) in their speech, similar to
how Americans use “um” or “er” (Agrawal, 2020). Some Black students later complained to the
administration that the Mandarin word was triggering because of its similarity in sound to an
inflammatory racial slur (Agrawal, 2020). In response, newly appointed USC Marshall Dean
Geoff Garrett removed Patton from the class (Agrawal, 2020) and stated, “It is simply
unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt, and harm the
psychological safety of our students. We must and we will do better” (Volokh, 2020b, n.p.). In
the wake of these actions, USC Marshall professors fielded a survey of faculty attitudes, and
their subsequent report of findings detailed how Garrett’s decisions negatively impacted faculty
and, by extension, student learning (Marshall Faculty Council, 2021). Additionally, a group of
almost 100 USC alumni, the vast majority of whom were Chinese or Chinese American who
lived in China and who had done business in China, wrote to the USC Marshall administration in
support of Patton and the importance of his lecture (Volokh, 2020a). They also emphasized the
irony that Garrett’s actions represented a kind of racism and cultural insensitivity that echoed

41
foreign totalitarian regimes: “This current incident, and Marshall's response so far, seem
disturbingly similar to prevalent behavior in China [during the Cultural Revolution]—spurious
accusations against innocent people, which escalated into institutional insanity” (Volokh, 2020a,
n.p.).
At least part of the reason for this tension is the increasing lack of political viewpoint
diversity on college campuses. The Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA has been
tracking self-identified political leanings, and they have noted that in 1995, professors claiming
to be liberal outnumbered those who claimed to be conservative by a 3:1 ratio; by 2011, that
grew to a 5:1 ratio (Hurtado et al., 2012; Sax et al., 1996; see also Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
Most recently, only one out of every 10 professors identified themselves as conservative
(Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023), whereas one out of every four considered themselves socialist
(Jussim et al., 2023). This liberal bias among university faculty has existed in varying degrees
within each U.S. region, with the Plains and Southeast having only a 3:1 liberal-to-conservative
ratio, compared to New England with the highest such ratio of 28:1 (Abrams, 2016).
Undergraduate students actually have slightly less liberal student representation than
faculty on campus, with a 3:1 liberal-to-conservative ratio of students versus the aforementioned
5:1 faculty ratio (Eagan et al., 2016). By contrast, conservatives are an even smaller minority
among university administrators. Abrams (2018) surveyed 900 administrators whose work dealt
directly with the quality and character of the student campus experience. He learned that 71%
identified as liberal or very liberal compared to only 6% of respondents who identified as
conservative to some degree, a nearly 12:1 ratio. These statistics led Abrams (2018) to conclude,
“It appears that a fairly liberal student body is being taught by a very liberal professoriate—and
socialized by an incredibly liberal group of administrators” (n.p.).

42
The contrast between conservative and liberal faculty is even more dramatic within
specified academic disciplines. Langbert (2018) researched 51 elite liberal arts colleges and
measured the Democrat-to-Republican voter registration ratio of 5,116 professors by their
department. He found that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) related
departments were at one extreme with the lowest ratios, with engineering at 1.6:1, chemistry at
5.2:1, and economics at 5.5:1. Humanities and liberal arts were closer to the other extreme, with
sociology departments at 43.8:1, English departments at 48.3:1, and religion departments at 70:1.
Most striking were two disciplines which had absolutely no one claiming to be a registered
Republican: anthropology was 56:0 and communications was 108:0 (Langbert, 2018). Honeycutt
and Jussim (2020) noted that conservatives and Black people each represent 4% of the
membership in the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. However, since Black people
and conservatives were 13.4% and 35%, respectively, of the U.S. population, conservatives are
actually the more underrepresented group. Mather (2018) recalled that at one of the annual
conferences of the Association of Psychological Science, the social psychologists speaking at the
conference used Republicans as the butt of jokes 14 times in eight presentations, whereas they
joked about Democrats only once. Other research confirms a strong bias against Republicans in
social sciences (Abrams, 2016; Duarte et al., 2015; Shields & Dunn, 2016).
Given their minority status, conservative faculty tend to self-censor. The 2022 FIRE
Faculty Survey revealed that 76% felt their department’s climate was hostile towards
conservative professors (Honeycutt et al., 2023). Conservative students also self-censor (Zhou &
Barbaro, 2023), often hiding their political leanings because they and even their liberal-leaning
classmates have experienced professors showing hostility towards conservative students in class
(Honeycutt & Jussim, 2020).

43
While conservatives are most frequently in the minority, they can and do practice cancel
culture as well. French (2022) noted that, in general, conservatives are more likely to engage in
cancel culture fratricide, attacking other conservatives who they believe are behaving heretically
or saying things that are against established, very often so-called Make America Great Again
(MAGA), dogma. He cites the example of former Fox News journalist and conservative talk
show host Megyn Kelly, who asked then-candidate for U.S. President Donald Trump pointed
questions during an interview (Blake, 2016; Lukianoff & Schott, 2023). Immediately afterward,
Trump and his supporters repeatedly derided Kelly across multiple traditional and social media
platforms, eventually leading her to quit Fox News (Blake, 2016; Lukianoff & Schott, 2023).
Daniel Darling, the spokesman for the National Religious Broadcasters Association (NRBA),
wrote a piece for USA Today titled “Why, as a Christian and an American, I got the COVID
Vaccine” and followed up with a television appearance on the left-wing MSNBC’s Morning Joe
show to deliver a similar message (Darling, 2021; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). As a result, his
employer accused him of insubordination for publicly expressing views contrary to the NRBA
and eventually terminated him on those grounds (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023; Shellnutt, 2021).
Within academia, conservatives in power have cancelled opponents on both sides of the
political aisle. Liberty University prevented its student newspaper from printing anti-Trump
content before and after the 2016 presidential election (Koh et al., 2018; Lukianoff & Schlott,
2023) after de-recognizing its College Democrats club in the prior decade (Shibley, 2009). A
conservative student at predominantly liberal Yale Law School tried using the heckler’s veto on
Sarah Isgur, a former Trump administration Justice Department spokeswoman and current
conservative journalist, because he saw her give a hug to an associate dean who also happened to
be a longtime friend (Isgur, 2022). Nikole Hannah-Jones, a faculty member at the University of

44
North Carolina (UNC) who received the Pulitzer Prize for her “1619 Project” published in The
New York Times, was initially denied tenure because of objections from some conservative
groups and the lack of approval from the politically conservative University Board of Regents
(Robertson, 2021). After some delay, UNC eventually offered her tenure, but she declined it to
take a tenured position at Howard University instead (Killian, 2021).
Some conservatives are even turning against robust free speech protections. Harvard law
professor Adrian Vermeule (2020) advocated that protecting liberty is not the end goal of the
constitutional order and that promoting good rule is the correct priority, part of what he calls
“common-good constitutionalism” (Vermeule, 2020, n.p.; see also Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
Conservative journalist Josh Hammer (2021) claimed that historically, free speech was not
inherently valuable in and of itself but was merely a tool that made discerning truth, knowledge,
and justice easier; therefore, overemphasizing the importance of free speech qua free speech is
both a mistake and an incorrect interpretation of history.
During the past decade, universities and their senior administrators responded to speech
they disliked by increasing the use of bias response teams to find and punish students, faculty,
and staff who express thoughts or opinions contrary to prevailing orthodoxies on campus. In
2017, over 230 public and private universities in the United States deployed some type of bias
response team, enabling people to anonymously report others for allegedly offensive expression
or behavior (FIRE, 2017; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). By 2022, that number had doubled, with
no indication that the trend will reverse itself in the near future (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023;
Speech First, 2022).
Another way university administrators have quelled free speech and viewpoint diversity
has, somewhat ironically, been through the expanded use of mandatory diversity statements in

45
the faculty hiring, retention, and tenure evaluation processes. Lukianoff and Schlott (2023) and
Schmaling et al. (2015) explained that these requirements have typically involved candidates
answering questions about or writing statements to describe what research, service, or other
actions they have taken to demonstrate their commitment to identity-based DEI promoted by
critical theorists (Beausoleil, 2019; Bérubé & Ruth, 2022; Brayboy, 2006; Delgado, 1993;
Delgado & Stefancic, 2018, Morgan, 1996; Tsesis, 2000). As an example, see Appendix C for
the UC Davis guidelines for writing such a statement, referenced by other members of the UC
system including UCLA and UC San Diego (UC Davis, n.d.; UC San Diego, n.d.-a; UCLA,
n.d.), and Appendix D, E, and F for 3 example statements published by UC San Diego as
exemplars (n.d.-b, n.d-c, n.d.-d). A 2022 AAUP survey of 272 chief academic officers at
universities revealed that over 20% of them included DEI attributes as part of their tenure
evaluation criteria, and of those that did not, almost half are strongly contemplating doing so in
the future (FIRE, 2024a; Tiede, 2022). Moreover, the American Enterprise Institute evaluated
academic job postings, discovering that 19% had mandatory DEI statements, with postings for
adjunct professors (22%) and for positions at the most prestigious universities (34%) being even
higher (Paul & Maranto, 2021).
These mandatory DEI statements are problematic on multiple fronts. First, they function
as compelled speech in the form of ideological oaths that universities require faculty to affirm in
order to be hired or promoted; in that respect, they quell academic freedom and likely violate the
First Amendment (Academic Freedom Alliance, 2022; Epstein, 2020; Friedersdorf, 2023; La
Noue, 2023; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023; Ortner, 2021). Secondly, they dissuade or disadvantage
excellent academics from participating in the hiring or tenure-track process when such DEI
statements fall outside their area of expertise (Friedersdorf, 2023; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023;

46
Newman, 2025), thereby affecting the quantity, quality, and variety of professors doing research
and teaching at universities (Friedersdorf, 2023; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Finally, there is no
evidence that these measures will achieve their stated goals, and based on similar efforts made in
professions outside of academia, there are indications that mandatory DEI efforts are actually
counter-productive (Devine & Ash, 2022; Dover et al., 2019; Friedersdorf, 2023; Kaiser et al.,
2013; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023; Wang et al., 2024). These arguments are beginning to make
universities reconsider the wisdom of such practices, with Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts
and Sciences, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University of Michigan, and
the entire UC system recently deciding to stop requiring diversity statements (Hartocollis, 2024;
Mastony, 2024; Newman, 2025; Robinson & Shah, 2024).
The last way university administrators have impacted the free speech climate on college
campuses is by taking positions and making public statements on behalf of the institution
regarding influential issues of the day. Proponents of such behavior have stated that as
community members, universities should actively engage in society’s debates (Halley, 2024).
Additionally, universities implicitly take positions on politically sensitive issues by choosing
how they behave, with whom they do business, and where they invest their endowments (Halley,
2024). Banout (2024) mentions a related justification seen through an epistemological lens: since
all knowledge is relative and based on one’s perspective, universities, as knowledge-generating
institutions, are inherently taking stances on issues all the time. Other academics argue that
religious, societal, and cultural groups founded many institutions with extra-institutional roles
specifically embedded into their missions, making such statements integral to their very
existence (Post, 2023).

47
The University of Chicago has chosen a different path. In 1967, in the midst of the
broader Free Speech Movement, the university president empaneled a faculty committee to
prepare a statement “on the University’s role in political and social action” (University of
Chicago, 2024, n.p.). The subsequent “Kalven Report” and “Kalven Principles,” as they became
known in honor of committee chair Henry Kalven, Jr., advocated for neutrality by its leaders and
the institution as a whole to prevent establishing orthodoxies and preferred points of view,
thereby granting more freedom to individual faculty members and students to pursue and express
any idea they wished (FIRE, 2023b; Kalven et al., 1967; Saiger, 2024). In 2022, the UNC system
adopted the Kalven principles of institutional neutrality for itself, and six other universities have
since followed suit (FIRE, 2024b).
The University of Chicago also built upon its early free-speech-friendly creed by
consistently reaffirming its advocacy for free speech and open inquiry amongst its many
stakeholders. In 2014, as cancel culture was beginning to emerge as a threat on campus and
elsewhere, the university’s president and provost created a committee of faculty members with
the goal of clarifying the University’s dedication to fostering an environment where rich debate
and disagreement could flourish (Stone et al., 2015). The resulting document, known as the
“Chicago Statement” (FIRE, 2024c, n.p.) or “Chicago Principles” (The University of Chicago,
n.d., n.p.), has become a model for how universities can unequivocally articulate such a
commitment, and 110 American universities have since adopted it verbatim, officially endorsed
it, or created a substantially similar statement of their own (FIRE, 2024c). The Chicago
Statement also addressed the concurrent proliferation at other universities of so-called safe
spaces: locations where students from traditionally underrepresented groups can retreat and self-

48
segregate to avoid having to hear challenging and unwanted ideas or media coverage (FIRE
Intern, 2015; Morey, 2015; Piro, 2022):
Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees
all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write,
listen, challenge, and learn. . . . [I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to
shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even
deeply offensive. (Stone et al., 2015, p. 2)
The issue of free speech on campus and the relative merit of institutional neutrality
recently came to a head after October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists murdered and kidnapped
approximately 1,200 Israeli civilians, and Israel responded militarily. Many subsequent actions,
reactions, and controversies have occurred at American universities, including Harvard and
University of Pennsylvania presidents losing their jobs soon after testifying to the U.S. Congress
regarding antisemitism on campus (CBS News, 2024). Similar events continue to the present day
and have been too numerous and diverse to adequately evaluate and discuss in this study
(“Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States,” 2024). That said, the intensity of passionate
opinions on both sides of the issue, the sheer magnitude of people involved, and the variety of
ways in which people have protested and authorities have responded on U.S. university
campuses reinforce the need to understand and address the dynamics of free speech, free
expression, and academic freedom going forward.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study synthesizes Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1994)
ecological systems theory with the literature, underlying societal laws and culture, and recent onand off-campus events of the past decade (Figure 1). The study uses this theory to examine

49
problem of growing intolerance among undergraduate students for speech with which they
disagree. The conceptual framework creates a structure to assess and evaluate the problem
because the theory allows for a way to organize and evaluate undergraduate students and the
factors that influence their values, attitudes, and behaviors with regard to free speech and cancel
culture.
Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1994) identified five layers through which person and
environment exert influence on each other and analyzed how layers of the environment affect
adjacent layers. This conceptual framework focuses on three of the layers: microsystem,
mesosystem, and exosystem. The microsystem examines the direct influences of undergraduate
students at universities, particularly those with whom they interact on a daily basis both in and
out of the classroom. The primary influences of the microsystem include the values, attitudes,
and behaviors of faculty, university staff, and other students with regard to free speech and
tolerance of ideas with which they disagree.
The mesosystem is where the microsystem elements interact with each other. In the
conceptual framework’s mesosystem, opportunities for undergraduate students to interact with
each other include the classroom, other mandatory student activities like new student orientation
or academic advising sessions, and virtual opportunities to connect and network via social media.
The classroom provides the primary forum for undergraduate opportunities to interact with
faculty, with social media and other mandatory student activities being other considerations.
Undergraduate student interactions with staff tend to occur during mandatory student activities,
with some potential for interaction on social media and little to no interaction in the classroom.
Likewise, the interactions between faculty and staff are more likely during mandatory student

50
activities in which faculty are also participating, potentially on social media platforms, and
unlikely in the classroom.
External factors which affect elements of the mesosystem and microsystem comprise the
exosystem. Within the exosystem of this conceptual framework, the university’s behavior and its
policies, which inform that behavior, are at the forefront, particularly in light of the
administrator-driven activities described in the literature review that impact free speech. The
underlying free speech culture extant within the university is also a critical factor, shaping
elements of the mesosystem and microsystem as much as official policies. Given the
considerable international student population present within American universities, the student’s
country of origin is an important factor worth incorporating, especially in light of the noteworthy
and often large differences between American free speech laws and culture, and that the
literature review noted. Finally, current events such as presidential elections, global pandemics,
wars, and social upheaval, just to name a few, create, catalyze, and influence discussions and
potential disagreements within and between parts of the mesosystem.
Schwartz’s (2012) theory of basic values posits that a person’s primary core values are
what form, drive, and explain a person’s attitudes, and those attitudes in turn, shape and explain
behaviors. He adds, “Values influence action when they are relevant in the context (hence likely
to be activated) and important to the actor” (Schwartz, 2012, p. 4). This study utilizes the
conceptual framework as a lens through which the researcher evaluates which underlying values
held by undergraduate students ultimately drive attitudes regarding openness to ideas with which
the student disagrees and potential behaviors that the student takes in response to speech and
speakers that are contrary to their own. Similarly, the conceptual framework shapes the

51
understanding of the contexts most relevant to drive a student to act to silence speech, as well as
determining which attitudes are of greater importance to activate such action.
While certain forms of speech have the potential to cause psychological and even some
types of physiological harm, equating such speech with physical violence and sanctioning violent
responses to disagreeable speech has historically encouraged less speech and more violence.
When two extremist Muslim terrorists responded to satirical depictions of the prophet
Muhammad in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo by shooting people in the publication’s
headquarters, killing 12 people, and injuring 11 more (Landauro et al., 2015), it was not a form
of speech. As Lukianoff and Schlott (2023) described, free speech laws and free speech culture
are distinct. The Enlightenment blossomed in France when it did because of a willingness to
discuss new and challenging ideas despite the country having bad free speech laws at the same
time (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). In contrast, Russia and North Korea currently have robust
guarantees of freedom of speech written into each of their constitutions, yet in practice, their free
speech cultures are horrific to the extent they exist at all (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023).
Maintaining a bright line between speech and actual physical violence is an important part of
ensuring a free speech culture thrives (Mchangama, 2022). Therefore, this conceptual framework
enables a better understanding of those undergraduate students who would never resort to
violence in response to speech they despise and comparing them with students who would.

52
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Conclusion
Free speech has been a critical aspect of democratic societies, and it remains so today.
Ancient Athenians were the first to value free speech and held two distinct conceptualizations,
one applicable in governmental settings and one to individuals in their daily lives, mirroring
modern differentiation of free speech laws and free speech culture. The United States, through its
laws and jurisprudence, has the most robust and expansive set of protections for the free speech
of its citizens the world has ever seen, and the underlying free speech culture in the United States
is also among the best in the world. American universities have been beneficiaries of this
openness to free speech, which is particularly important given the modern mission of universities
to create, research, and teach knowledge, old and new, and to do so by exploring, interrogating,
and challenging ideas both popular and unpopular. Recent world events, increasing political

53
polarization of faculties, as well as evolving academic philosophies, administrative priorities, and
societal dynamics have, since 2014, put negative pressure on free speech culture in American
universities and led to the rise of cancel culture. As a result, some students are more willing than
ever to resort to more extreme tactics to disrupt and prevent other people on campus from
expressing, hearing, and discussing ideas that they dislike. Understanding the values and
attitudes which drive this behavior provides important context for possible future actions.

54
Chapter Three: Methodology
The study aims to evaluate the growing intolerance for free speech and rise in cancel
culture among undergraduates on university campuses within the United States. This chapter
starts with a review of the research questions before offering an overview of the design and
setting. The next section discusses positionality, discloses relevant biases, and explores any
appropriate mitigation strategies. The following sections cover the research itself, including data
sources, participants, instrumentation used to collect the data, and data collection procedures.
Subsequent sections cover plans for analyzing the data as well as strategies to maximize the
validity and reliability of the data. Finally, the chapter closes with discussions of ethical
considerations.
Research Questions
The following questions guided the study:
• RQ1: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by other
undergraduates at the same institution?
• RQ2: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
faculty?
• RQ3: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
policies and behaviors of university administrators?
Overview of Design
The research design for this study involved conducting new independent quantitative
analysis of extant secondary quantitative survey data. As Creswell and Creswell (2022) noted,
utilizing a survey design allows for attitudes and opinions of the participating respondents, as
well as comparing and testing for relationships between those attitudes and opinions. The

55
researcher can use this analysis to make inferences about the population from which they sample
respondents (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). Choosing this method allows the researcher to conduct
a robust and meaningful original analysis on a large cross-section of recent undergraduate
students in an efficient and effective way.
Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions
New quantitative analyses
of existing secondary
research data
RQ1: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they
disagree affected by other undergraduates at the same
institution?
X
RQ2: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they
disagree affected by faculty? X
RQ3: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they
disagree affected by policies and behaviors of university
administrators?
X
Research Setting
Undergraduate institutions in the United States are the research setting for this study.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2023), 17.3 million students enrolled in college in 2022,
and of these, 81.1% of them attended a public college or university. Given the national scope of
cancel culture instances occurring within the past decade, conducting analyses on as broad a
sample size as possible maximizes the possibility of thoroughly addressing the research
questions. Therefore, utilizing this particular data set of undergraduate students, each of whom
enrolled full-time in 2023 at a U.S. college and university, is appropriate.

56
The Researcher
This section briefly describes my positionality, or how I am “situated through the
intersection of power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture,
language, and other factors” (Villaverde, 2008, p. 10). Although geographically limited, my
personal experience with American institutions of higher learning includes diverse types of
universities. For my undergraduate studies, I spent the first 3 years at a federal military service
academy with barely 4,000 enrolled undergraduate students (the United States Air Force
Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado) before completing my Bachelor of Science in
Mechanical Engineering over 18 months at a large public university with over 30,000
undergraduate students (California State University, Long Beach). I completed my Master of
Business Administration (MBA) at a medium-sized private university (USC). More recently, I
worked for 5.5 years at a private Jesuit Catholic university (Loyola Marymount University in
Los Angeles, CA). While at Loyola Marymount, I was a senior staff member working with
graduate business students and also an adjunct faculty member teaching undergraduate students.
In 2019, I moved to my current role at USC where I am in my 6th year working as senior staff
working with graduate business students. In addition, during my 17-year post-MBA career
working for large public corporations, I was heavily involved in recruiting MBA candidates from
over a dozen business schools throughout the country. Furthermore, while working at Loyola
Marymount and USC, I have networked with scores of other university staff members to discuss
our students and universities. This time spent at universities and with their stakeholders, which
continues to the present, gives me a depth and breadth of first-hand experiences related to
American universities which is likely greater than the average American.

57
I am an American citizen by birth, the son of immigrants who suffered through war in
their childhood before eventually putting themselves through college and becoming
professionals. While they had a positive view of their country of birth, they eventually decided to
move to the United States because of the greater opportunities it offered to achieve their personal
and professional goals and thrive in the relative freedom and liberty that American laws. As
such, I gained an appreciation for both American and foreign values, identifying as a proud
American who was equally proud of my heritage and ethnicity.
I have personally been the target of hate speech, in some cases because of my non-White
race and ethnicity from people who were of varying White and non-White races and ethnicities
themselves. In other cases, people who never met me in person targeted me for hate speech over
the phone or in writing because they mistakenly assumed me to be a White person based on my
European-sounding name. In still other cases, people directed hate speech at me because I am
American or because I live in Los Angeles or because I am a military veteran. I have experienced
what many would likely perceive as microaggressions in my personal and professional life and
chose to be angry or offended at none of them.
I am a member of Heterodox Academy, a “nonpartisan, nonprofit membership
organization of thousands of faculty, staff, and students committed to advancing the principles of
open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement to improve higher education
and academic research” (Heterodox Academy, 2024). This affiliation, combined with my life
experiences and my current professional role at a major private university in the United States,
could bias me as I conduct my analysis. I strongly mitigated this potential bias by having used
extant data which someone other than me gathered and a survey instrument they wrote;
therefore, my potential biases have absolutely no ability to affect the design of the survey

58
questions of the responses given to those questions. Furthermore, I mitigated potential bias in the
analysis of the survey data by fully disclosing of all results whether they confirm or contradict
those potential biases.
Data Sources
The data is based on a quantitative survey developed by FIRE and fielded and
administered by College Pulse between January 13, 2023, and June 30, 2023. No one else was
involved in the design or conduct of the survey, including any persons or organizations who
provided funding to the project (Stevens, 2023). Sean Stevens, director of polling and analytics
for FIRE, emailed the final data set, “cfsr2024 public.csv,” to me on October 3, 2023.
Participants
College Pulse collected the data from 55,102 undergraduate students. Each respondent
enrolled full-time in 4-year degree programs at one of 254 U.S. public and private colleges and
universities of varying size, composition, and affiliation. As Stevens (2023) explained, “The
margin of error for the U.S. undergraduate population is +/- 1 percentage point, and the margin
of error for college student sub-demographics ranges from 2-5 percentage points” (p. 41).
Instrumentation
Stevens (2023) described the instrumentation as follows, shared verbatim in its entirety to
ensure clarity, accuracy, and transparency:
College Pulse uses a two-stage validation process to ensure that all its surveys include
only students currently enrolled in two-year or four-year colleges or universities. Students
are required to provide an “.edu” email address to join the panel and, for this survey, had
to acknowledge that they are currently enrolled full-time in a four-year degree program.

59
All invitations to complete surveys were sent using the student’s “.edu” email address or
through a notification in the College Pulse app, available on iOS and Android platforms.
College Pulse applies a post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions
from multiple data sources, including the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS). The post-stratification weight rebalances the sample based on a
number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter
registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using
an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the
distributions of all variables. Weights are trimmed to prevent individual interviews from
having too much influence on the final results. The use of these weights in statistical
analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate
the demographic characteristics of the target populations. Even with these adjustments,
surveys may be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context, and order
effects. (p. 41)
Appendix A and B contain the survey question codebook and the demographic codebook.
Data Collection Procedures
Stevens (2023) described the data collection procedures as follows, shared verbatim in its
entirety to ensure clarity, accuracy, and transparency:
The initial sample was drawn from College Pulse’s American College Student Panel™,
which includes more than 750,000 verified undergraduate students and recent alumni
from schools within a range of more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and
universities in all 50 states. Panel members were recruited by a number of methods to

60
help ensure student diversity in the panel population: These methods include web
advertising, permission-based email campaigns, and partnerships with universityaffiliated organizations. To ensure the panel reflects the diverse backgrounds and
experiences of the American college population, College Pulse recruited panelists from a
wide variety of institutions. The panel includes students attending large public
universities, small private colleges, online universities, historically Black colleges such as
Howard University, women’s colleges such as Smith College, and religiously affiliated
colleges such as Brigham Young University. (p. 41)
Data Analysis
The quantitative analysis relies upon specific questions in the FIRE and College Pulse
survey instrument for both dependent and independent variables. For clarity, this and subsequent
chapters use simplified wording of survey questions; Appendix A includes the complete list of
verbatim survey language. For example, the dependent variable for the study is Q17, simplified
to be: “How acceptable would you say it is for students to use violence to stop a campus
speech?” (see Appendix A). The following potential responses to Q17 were given to respondents
from which they could choose: (1) Always acceptable, (2) Sometimes acceptable, (3) Rarely
acceptable, (4) Never acceptable. I aggregated the 27% of respondents who selected response 1,
2, or 3 (Stevens, 2023) and compared them to those remaining respondents who selected
response 4.
I then utilized descriptive and inferential statistics to understand differences between the
two respondent groups using a subset of other survey questions as the independent variables. I
selected the independent variables based on their relevance to the research questions. For
example, for RQ3, the following survey questions (see Appendix A) are applicable:

61
• Q18: How clear is it to you that your college’s administration protects free speech on
campus?
• Q19: If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how
likely is it that your college’s administration would defend the speaker’s right to
express their views?
• Q32.9: Do you talk to college administrators about controversial political issues?
In addition, I used the other survey questions not used as independent variables to gain a better
understanding of how the two respondent groups are similar or different along demographic,
psychographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles.
Validity and Reliability
Reliability refers to consistency of survey results, such that administering surveys to the
same person repeatedly within a short span of time will yield substantially similar results
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). FIRE and Campus Pulse fielded nearly identical surveys in 2022 and
2021. The two organizations jointly conducted an earlier version of this survey using a similar
survey instrument in 2020.
Validity refers to accuracy of survey results, such that the surveys actual measure what
they claim to measure (Salkind & Frey, 2020). To increase validity, FIRE and College Pulse
asked multiple questions about related topics to test similar concepts. Moreover, the data set’s
large 55,102 nationally representative sample size increased validity, as do the weighting
schemes described by Stevens (2023) that FIRE and College Pulse implemented.
Ethics
College Pulse complied with ethical and legal requirements in fielding this survey.
Respondents joined the research panel and completed this particular survey voluntarily, and

62
College Pulse imposed no penalties on panelists if they failed to complete the survey. In
addition, participants could drop out or stop answering questions at any point in the survey.
Finally, the survey did not ask for personally identifiable information from the respondents,
thereby ensuring anonymity which was critical for candid and honest responses (van Selm &
Jankowski, 2006). I was not involved in the design or fielding of the survey, adding an additional
layer of anonymity.
FIRE provides the survey data free of charge to anyone wishing to use them for
additional research, including this survey. FIRE made no other requests and put no other
conditions on me in exchange for providing the data. There is no requirement that I provide them
with a copy of my analysis or of this study.

63
Chapter Four: Results
The study aimed to evaluate the growing intolerance for free speech and rise in cancel
culture among undergraduates on university campuses within the United States. This chapter
analyzed demographic and psychographic differences between students who feel that violence is
never an acceptable response to speech with which they disagree and other students who feel that
violence can be acceptable. To accomplish this, the following questions guided the study:
• RQ1: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
other undergraduates at the same institution?
• RQ2: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
faculty?
• RQ3: How is a student’s tolerance for speech with which they disagree affected by
policies and behaviors of university administrators?
Participants
College Pulse collected the data from 55,102 undergraduate students. Each respondent
enrolled full-time in 4-year degree programs at one of 254 U.S. public and private colleges and
universities of varying size, composition, and affiliation. As Stevens (2023) explained, “The
margin of error for the U.S. undergraduate population is +/- 1 percentage point, and the margin
of error for college student sub-demographics ranges from 2-5 percentage points” (p. 41).
Study Results
The presentation of study results begins with an overview which discusses the data
analysis, statistical methodology, and software the study used. It then shares a demographic
overview of the two primary student groups being juxtaposed: (a) those undergraduates for
whom violence is never an acceptable response to speech with which they disagree (hereinafter

64
referred to as the “Never” group), and (b) those undergraduates who consider violence to be an
acceptable response to speech with which they disagree (hereinafter referred to as the “Consider”
group). After presenting the demographic summary, the section covers focuses on responses of
students within the Consider group and how survey responses related to the respective research
question by that group differ within key demographic categories.
Quantitative Overview
The survey collected most of its data as nominal data, which the study converted into
ordinal data as needed for analysis using JMP Pro 18 software. Ordinal responses varied by
question (see Appendix A). The study also utilized Microsoft Excel for Mac Version 16.78 for
additional analysis and data manipulation. Combined, analyses included examination of multiple
descriptive statistics as well as statistical validity. Table 2 includes total sample sizes and
percentage shares for the three primary student groups included in the analysis.
Table 2
Size of Key Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
% 71.04 28.96 100.00
n 39,143 15,959 55,102
Note. While Stevens (2023) weighted the data in his original report based on criteria described
above, this study used the raw data without weights; for reference, the weighted Never group
was reported to be 73% of the total sample, while the weighted Consider group was 27%.
Demographics
The survey captured a wide variety of demographic attributes for the respondents (see
Appendix B). Among all the available attributes, the analysis for this study focused on gender,

65
sexual orientation, academic class year, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, academic major,
political ideology, geography, and whether the student attends a public or private university.
Details are in Table 3 through Table 11 below. In many cases, tables aggregate individual
categories of responses for clarity and ease of analysis. In addition, Table 12 gives the 10
universities with the greatest representation within each student group. The subsequent analysis
of survey results for the three research questions utilized noteworthy demographic results.
Table 3
Gender Composition of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Gender % % %
Male 30.14 30.41 30.40
Female 63.32 53.34 60.08
Other^ 4.11 12.90 6.79
Prefer Not to Say 2.42 3.36 2.73
Note. ^See Appendix B for full list of genders the study aggregated into the “Other” category.
Males represent a roughly equal proportion of approximately 30% for both Never and
Consider student groups which also corresponds with the total population. Female students
comprise a notably higher proportion of the Never student group, balanced by fewer students in
the Other and Prefer Not to Say categories; females also constitute a significantly lower
representation in both Consider groups. This result contrasts with those of students who reported
their gender as something other than male or female who are nearly twice as likely to appear in
the Consider group as they do in the general population.

66
Table 4
Sexual Orientation Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Sexual Orientation % % %
Straight (Heterosexual) 72.28 57.51 68.02
Other^ 27.72 42.49 31.98
Note. ^See Appendix B for full list of orientations aggregated into “Other” category.
Heterosexual respondents over-indexed within the Never student group. In contrast,
undergraduate students who did not categorize themselves as straight or heterosexual were much
more likely to be in the Consider group, indicating a higher chance that violence would be
sometimes or rarely acceptable in response to unwanted speech.
Table 5
Graduation Year Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Graduation Year % % %
2026 15.53 16.85 15.91
2025 22.62 23.42 22.85
2024 27.83 27.88 27.84
2023 34.02 31.85 33.39
The overall data set skews older, with over one-third of respondents being in their senior
year of college and over one-quarter in their junior year. There are no statistically significant
differences between the two student groups and the overall sample. However, there is a nominal
increase of class of 2026 respondents in the Consider student group.

67
Table 6
Socioeconomic Status Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Socioeconomic Status % % %
Upper class 4.47 5.74 4.84
Upper-middle class 27.54 25.01 26.81
Middle class 39.66 39.70 39.67
Working class 20.29 19.97 20.20
Lower class 8.04 9.59 8.48
Note. Socioeconomic status was self-defined by each respondent. The questionnaire gave no
guidelines, income, or net worth figures in conjunction with this question.
There is no statistically significant difference between socioeconomic breaks of the
Never group when compared to the population as a whole. The same is also true for the Consider
group. That said, there is a slightly greater number of upper class students within the Consider
group.

68
Table 7
Race/Ethnic Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Race/Ethnicity % % %
Hispanic/Latinx 11.60 11.82 11.67
Black or African American 7.50 9.84 8.18
Native American/Indigenous 0.76 2.14 1.16
Asian/Southeast Asian 15.41 20.93 17.01
Middle Eastern 1.88 3.85 2.45
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.41 1.22 0.65
White 48.79 35.30 44.89
Two or More races 7.47 7.06 7.35
Other/no answer 6.17 7.83 6.65
Note. The question asked for “race or ethnicity you most identify with” and therefore only
accepted one response per respondent (see Appendix B).
In general, the Never group composition had slightly more respondents in White and two
or more races categories than the total population. By contrast, the Consider group over-indexed
for all non-White races and ethnicities. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders and Native
American/Indigenous groups indexed nearly double over the total population.

69
Table 8
Academic Major Category Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Academic Major Category % % %
Physical Sciences and Math 17.71 14.89 16.89
Business and Economics 16.37 17.28 16.63
Engineering and Comp Sci 16.94 14.92 16.36
Social Sciences and Education 16.28 15.76 16.13
Other/Undecided 10.86 12.95 11.46
Medicine/Nursing/Health 7.20 5.67 6.76
Humanities 5.20 6.05 5.45
Communications and Journalism 3.83 3.54 3.75
Fine Arts and Performing Arts 2.88 2.82 2.86
Ethnic and Gender Studies 1.15 4.97 2.25
Law 1.58 1.14 1.46
Notes. See Appendix A for full list of academic majors.
Within the Never group, students majoring in physical sciences and mathematics,
engineering and computer sciences, medicine/nursing/health, and law index slightly higher than
the total population. Within the Consider group, students majoring in ethnic and gender studies
indexed higher than the total population. Similarly, students who are undecided or whose major
was not listed also indexed higher than the total population.

70
Table 9
Political Ideology Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Political Ideology % % %
Democratic Socialist 2.04 1.56 3.60
Very Liberal 19.31 24.14 20.71
Slightly/Somewhat Liberal 31.26 27.59 30.20
Moderate 14.18 13.70 14.04
Slightly/Somewhat Conservative 14.00 13.18 13.77
Very Conservative 5.48 4.28 5.13
Other 4.23 1.77 6.00
Libertarian 1.79 0.66 2.45
Note. See Appendix A for full list of original responses.
The political affiliation within the Never group was substantially similar to the total
population. While the proportion of total liberals within the Consider group was slightly higher
than in the total population, it skewed notably towards those who considered themselves very
liberal at 24.14% compared to 20.71% for the total population. For all other ideological leanings,
the Consider group was at or lower than the total population.
Table 10
Geographic Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
U.S. Region of Hometown % % %
New England 12.31 12.72 12.43
Mid-Atlantic 9.94 11.75 10.46
Midwest 26.29 22.95 25.33
South 22.70 21.66 22.40
West 17.85 17.03 17.61
Non-Continental 0.60 1.00 0.72
International 5.47 6.44 5.75
Other 4.84 6.45 5.31

71
Table 11
Public versus Private University Breakdown of Student Groups
Student Group Never Consider Total
Public or Private % % %
Public 63.64 63.02 63.47
Private 36.36 36.98 36.53
In general, Never group slightly over-represented all continental U.S. regions except New
England and Mid-Atlantic. Among the Consider group, respondents who gave non-continental,
international, or other hometowns along with students from the Mid-Atlantic region were slightly
over-represented. When examining public versus private schools, neither of the groups had
significant differences from the total population profile. Table 12 below gives a list of top
universities in each student group for informational purposes.
Table 12
Top 10 Universities for Each Student Group
Group Never Consider
Rank Name % Name %
1 Hillsdale College 93.58 UC Davis 46.43
2 Brigham Young U. Provo 92.71 De Pauw U. 45.50
3 Liberty U. 87.17 Caltech 44.25
4 Michigan Tech U. 86.67 U. of Texas at Austin 44.15
5 Utah State U. 86.17 UC Berkeley 43.87
6 Oklahoma State U.
Main Campus
85.61 Case Western Reserve 43.05
7 U. of Alaska Anchorage 85.00 Wellesley College 42.36
8 Franklin & Marshall College 84.62 San Jose St. U. 41.67
9 Stevens Inst. of Tech. 84.47 Rutgers U. 41.64
10 Washington & Lee U. 83.83 UCLA 41.45

72
In summary, the demographic or psychographic breakdowns described above which
show the biggest difference between Never and Consider groups are gender (see Table 3), sexual
orientation (see Table 4), race/ethnicity (see Table 7), and academic major category (see Table
8). While political ideology (see Table 9) and geographic breakdown (see Table 10) also
indicated some differences between Never and Consider groups, these differences were less
pronounced than the first four indicated. Therefore, when necessary, subsequent analysis for the
three research questions focuses only on gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and academic
major category.
Results: RQ1
RQ1 addresses the influence of an undergraduate student’s classmates on their tolerance
for free speech. The relevant questions from the survey instrument are:
• Q8: How comfortable would you feel expressing your views on a controversial
political topic during an in-class discussion?
• Q9: How comfortable would you feel expressing your views on a controversial
political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space such
as a quad, dining hall, or lounge?
• Q10: How comfortable would you feel expressing an unpopular political opinion to
your fellow students on a social media account tied to your name?
• Q11: On your campus, how often have you felt that you could not express your
opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration
would respond?
• Q26: How often do you self-censor during conversations with other students on
campus?

73
• Q28: How often do you self-censor during classroom discussions?
• Q32.5: Do you talk to friends about controversial political issues?
Data analyses involved filtering each of these questions by Never and Consider groups
and comparing to the raw baseline of 28.9% of the total student population willing to Consider
violence to suppress speech with which they disagreed. Since Never and Consider groups are
mutually exclusive and therefore always add to 100%, the tables below only show results for the
Consider group for clarity and ease of understanding.
Table 13
How Comfortable Would You Feel Doing the Following on Your Campus? (RQ1)
% Consider
Violence
Very
Uncomfortable
Somewhat
Uncomfortable
Somewhat
Comfortable
Very
Comfortable
Survey Question % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Q8 expressing
views in class
21.16^^ (2,736) 30.41* (5,983) 32.92** (5,494) 30.09 (1,796)
Q9 expressing
views in
common
spaces
23.97 (2,596) 31.30** (5,765) 30.01* (5,535) 27.84 (2,063)
Q10 expressing
views on
social media
20.65^^ (4,171) 32.03** (6,131) 37.62** (4,225) 31.60** (1,423)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix A for original wording of
survey questions.
As Table 13 shows, students who were very uncomfortable expressing views in any
situation were significantly less likely to consider violence. On the other hand, students very

74
comfortable expressing views were relatively similar to the general population in their
consideration of violence. Somewhat surprisingly, students who had more moderate feelings,
whether somewhat comfortable or uncomfortable, were actually most likely to consider violence
than students at either extreme.
Table 14
On Your Campus, How Often Have You / Do You Done the Following? (RQ1)
% Consider Violence Never Rarely Occasionally Fairly
often
Very
often
Survey Question %
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
Q11 Not expressed
opinion
25.32^^
(1,764)
27.06^^
(5,404)
32.82**
(5,689)
29.48
(2,191)
26.84
(911)
Q26 Self-censor during
conversations
27.07
(1,417)
26.04^^
(4,564)
31.77**
(5,964)
30.47
(2,982)
27.28
(1,032)
Q28 Self-censor during
class discussions
26.63
(1,224)
25.89^^
(4,248)
31.34**
(5,913)
31.33**
(3,272)
27.22
(1,302)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix A for original wording of
survey questions.
Table 14 shows results of questions relating to how often students remain silent or selfcensor in various situations on campus. As with the three questions asking students about their
comfort levels expressing views in various situations, students responding at the extreme ends of
these questions are less likely to consider violence than the total sample population. Students
who responded to the middle of the scale, stating those who occasionally remain silent or self-

75
censor were the most likely to consider violence, significantly more so than the overall sample at
a 99% confidence interval.
Table 15
Do You Talk to friends About Controversial Issues? (RQ1)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Survey Question % (n) % (n)
Q32.5 44.54** (5,651) 24.30^^ (10,308)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group.
By far, the biggest difference from the baseline among the seven survey questions used to
address Research Question One was for Q32.5, with 44.54% of students who state that they do
not talk to friends about controversial issues falling into the Consider group, while only 24.30%
of undergraduates who do talk to friends about controversial issues consider violence as a
response to speech they dislike (see Table 15). These differences, respectively above and below
the baseline 28.93% for the total sample population, are statistically significant at 99%
confidence levels. The fact that there almost double the total number students who responded yes
compared to those who responded no is also noteworthy.
To gain a better understanding of these students, additional analysis is useful. Therefore, I
filtered this same survey question by gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity and academic
major category (see Table 16 through Table 19, respectively). Importantly, this large spread
between students who responded no versus yes for this question remains consistent throughout
those four key demographic cuts. Moreover, every subset of students within these categories is

76
more likely than the total population to consider violence if they do not talk to friends about
controversial issues.
Table 16
Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (By Gender) (RQ1)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Gender % n % n
Man 45.64** 1,847 23.80^^ 2,971
Woman 37.27** 2,440 22.68^^ 6,011
Other 75.69** 1,021 44.63** 1,023
Prefer not to answer 46.36** 306 27.76 226
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix B for full list of genders which
were aggregated into the Other category.
All students who state their gender as something other than male or female are more
likely than the total population to consider violence, regardless of how they answer this question;
however, over 75% of Other gendered students who do not speak to friends about controversial
issues are willing to consider violence. In contrast, only 45.64% of men are in the same category.
Women in the same category are even less willing to consider violence, and at 37.27% are lower
than the general population at a 99% confidence interval.

77
Table 17
Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (By Sexual Orientation) (RQ1)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Sexual orientation % n % n
Straight (heterosexual) 38.29** 3,187 20.17^^ 5,527
Other^ 57.56** 2,144 32.84** 4,294
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix B for full list of sexual
orientations which were aggregated into the Other category.
Results within sexual orientation are similar to the results by gender. All students who
identify as something other than straight or heterosexual are more likely than the total population
to consider violence, regardless of whether they talk to friends about controversial issues;
however, these same non-heterosexual students are much more likely to consider violence if they
do not have these conversations than if they do (57.56% versus 32.84%, respectively). On the
other straight undergraduates who answered yes are significantly less likely than the general
population to consider violence. While the 38.29% of straight undergraduates who answered no
were more likely to consider violence than the overall sample baseline of 28.96%, this still was
significantly lower than the 44.54% of all students answering no at a 99% confidence.

78
Table 18
Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (by Race/Ethnicity) (RQ1)
% Consider Violence No Yes
race/ethnicity % n % n
Hispanic/Latinx 41.36** 646 25.50^^ 1,241
Black or African American 48.97** 568 29.95 1,002
Native American/Indigenous 75.63** 239 31.79 103
Asian/Southeast Asian 51.17** 1,289 29.94 2,052
Middle Eastern 64.79** 357 32.13 257
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 68.25** 129 39.29 66
White 34.16** 1,429 20.46^^ 4,205
Two or More races 39.77** 317 24.86 809
Other/no answer 48.01** 677 25.42 573
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group.
Table 18 shows results broken down by race and ethnicity. There are two important
things to point out regarding students who responded no. First, undergraduate students who selfidentify as White are significantly less likely (at a 99% confidence interval) than those who
identify under all other single racial or ethnic categories to consider violence.
Second, all racial and ethnic groups are significantly less likely (at a 99% confidence
level) to consider violence if they have discussions regarding controversial topics with their
friends than if they do not. Most striking is the difference with students who identify as Native

79
American/Indigenous, who are over twice as likely to consider violence if they do not have such
discussions with friends than if they do: 75.63% versus 31.79%, respectively, representing a
nearly 44% difference in absolute terms. In contrast, White and Hispanic/Latinx students have
the smallest difference in likelihood to consider violence between no and yes responses, with
both having an absolute difference of only about 15%.
Table 19
Do You Talk to Friends About Controversial Issues? (by Major) (RQ1)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Academic major category % n % n
Business and Economics 49.53** 1,213 23.00^^ 1,545
Fine Arts and Performing Arts 38.23* 125 26.00 325
Engineering and Comp Sci 35.93** 728 23.66^^ 1,653
Physical Sciences and Math 36.86** 693 22.67^^ 1,684
Social Sciences and Education 40.00** 642 25.72^^ 1,873
Humanities 44.31** 222 29.76 744
Ethnic and Gender Studies 78.33** 524 46.95** 269
Communications and Journalism 40.65 150 24.48^ 415
Law 29.14 44 21.20^ 138
Medicine, nursing, health 34.53* 270 21.58^^ 635
Other/Undecided 53.94** 1,040 23.40^^ 1,027
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix B for full list of majors.

80
Table 19 shows that students in all majors are more likely to consider violence if they
answered no to Q32.5 than if they answered yes. Ethnic and gender studies majors had the
highest proportion of undergraduates who would consider violence, with the 78.33% of students
answering no and 46.95% of those answering yes both being significantly higher at 99%
confidence intervals than comparable numbers for the general population. Undergraduate law
majors were the lowest (29.14%), with medicine, nursing, and health (34.53%), engineering and
computer science (35.93%), and physical sciences and math (36.86%) following closely behind.
Business and economics students represented the biggest relative spread between students who
do not talk to friends about controversial topics (49.53%) and those that do (23.00%), the only
set of majors where no answers were more than double yes responses.
Results: RQ2
RQ2 addresses the influence of an undergraduate student’s faculty on their tolerance for
free speech. The following questions from the survey instrument are relevant:
• Q6: How comfortable would you feel publicly disagreeing with a professor about a
controversial political topic?
• Q7: How comfortable would you feel expressing disagreement with one of your
professors about a controversial political topic in a written assignment?
• Q27: How often do you self-censor during conversations with your professors?
• Q32.7: Do you talk to professors about controversial political issues?
Note that Q11 also mentions faculty and Q8 and Q28 pertain to classroom discussions, implicitly
conducted with faculty present; however, RQ1 already analyzed two questions so RQ2 does not
duplicate that analysis.

81
Table 20
How Comfortable Would You Feel Doing the Following on Your Campus? (RQ2)
% Consider
Violence
Very
Uncomfortable
Somewhat
Uncomfortable
Somewhat
Comfortable
Very
Comfortable
Survey
Question
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
Q6 publicly
disagree
with
professor
20.21^^
(3,745)
31.28**
(6,183)
37.11**
(4,512)
30.94**
(1,519)
Q7 disagree
with
professor
in writing
assignment
23.28^^
(2,596)
31.30**
(5,765)
30.01*
(5,535)
27.84
(2,063)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group.
Students who were very uncomfortable publicly disagreeing with their professor were
significantly less likely than the overall sample to consider violence. All other students were
significantly more likely to consider violence, with those who were somewhat comfortable
having the highest propensity. Regarding disagreeing with professors in a writing assignment,
students’ likelihood to consider violence were closer to the overall sample, with those being
somewhat uncomfortable being the only ones were significantly more likely than the overall
population to consider violence at a 99% confidence interval.

82
Table 21
How Often Do You Self-Censor During Conversations With Your Professors? (RQ2)
% Consider
Violence
Never Rarely Occasionally Fairly
often
Very
often
Survey
Question
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
Q27 25.21^^
(1,354)
24.97^^
(4,275)
32.79**
(5,819)
32.05**
(2,191)
26.91
(1,330)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group.
Table 21 shows that students who never or rarely self-censor during conversation with
their professors are significantly less likely to consider violence. Additionally, students who very
often self-censor during those conversations are also directionally less likely to consider
violence, though this likelihood is not statistically significant. Finally, students who self-censor
occasionally or fairly often are significantly more likely to consider violence.
Table 22
Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (RQ2)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Survey Question % (n) % (n)
Q32.7 28.33 (13,174) 32.37** (2,785)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group.

83
Analysis of results for Q32.7 shows that the vast majority of students do not talk to their
professors about controversial issues (13,174 compared to the overall sample size of 15,959).
Those students are about as likely as the overall population to consider violence. In contrast, the
students who do talk to professors about controversial issues are significantly more likely to
consider violence than the total population. This result is exactly the opposite as the students that
talk to friends, who are less likely to consider violence. Given this contrast, I performed
additional analysis on this survey question using the same four demographic cuts that I used in
analysis of RQ1.
Table 23
Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Gender) (RQ2)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Gender % n % n
Man 28.59 3,996 32.16* 822
Woman 25.06^^ 7,046 28.48 1,405
Other 56.67** 1,584 54.37** 460
Prefer not to answer 35.60** 450 39.05* 82
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix B for full list of genders which
were aggregated into the Other category.
Students who identified as women and who talk to professors about controversial topics
are directionally less likely than the general population to consider violence to suppress free
speech. All other respondents who engage with professors similarly are significantly more likely
to consider violence. Of particular interest are students identifying their gender as Other. The

84
majority of these students would consider violence to suppress speech with which they disagree,
regardless of whether they talk to professors about controversial issues. Also, they are the only
group that has a higher consideration of violence if they do not speak with faculty.
Table 24
Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Sexual Orientation) (RQ2)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Sexual orientation % n % n
Straight (heterosexual) 24.12^^ 7,530 26.28^ 1,184
Other 37.92** 4,987 39.79** 1,451
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix B for full list of sexual
orientations which were aggregated into the Other category.
Students who identified as straight (heterosexual) were significantly less likely to
consider violence than the overall sample, regardless of whether they talked to professors about
controversial issues. In contrast, students who identified by other sexual orientations were
significantly more likely to consider violence than the overall sample if they answered either no
or yes to this question. Among both groups, students who engaged on controversial issues with
their professors were significantly more likely (at a 95% confidence interval) to consider
violence than those who did not.

85
Table 25
Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Race/Ethnicity) (RQ2)
% Consider Violence No Yes
race/ethnicity % n % n
Hispanic/Latinx 28.77 1,571 32.64 316
Black or African American 33.72** 1,279 40.81** 291
Native American/Indigenous 54.07** 299 49.43** 43
Asian/Southeast Asian 34.99** 2,902 40.69** 439
Middle Eastern 45.17** 528 47.25** 86
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 54.31** 170 56.82** 25
White 21.79^^ 4,446 27.43 1,188
Two or More races 26.93 900 31.88 226
Other/no answer 34.01** 1,079 34.83 171
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group.
Table 25 shows results for survey question Q32.7 broken down by race and ethnicity. All
racial and ethnic groups were more likely to consider violence than the general population if they
spoke to faculty about controversial issues. Native American/ Indigenous students were the only
ones who had lower likelihood to consider violence if they engaged with faculty (though given
the small sample size, these results should be taken as directional at best); for all other groups,
the oppose was true. The majority of students identifying as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
were willing to consider violence, regardless of their response, and Native American/Indigenous

86
students were close behind. In contrast, White and Hispanic/Latinx, as well as students who
identified as two or more races, were the least likely groups to consider violence regardless of
whether they engaged with faculty or not.
Table 26
Do You Talk to Faculty About Controversial Issues? (by Major) (RQ2)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Academic major category % n % n
Business and Economics 29.68 2,377 32.96 381
Fine Arts and Performing Arts 28.31 351 29.38 99
Engineering and Comp Sci 25.65^^ 2,100 34.06 281
Physical Sciences and Math 25.28^^ 2,036 27.17 341
Social Sciences and Education 27.72 1,913 30.28 602
Humanities 31.55 647 33.58 319
Ethnic and Gender Studies 65.26** 633 58.82** 160
Communications and Journalism 26.16 438 32.56 127
Law 22.27 141 24.26 41
Medicine, nursing, health 23.95^^ 789 26.91 116
Other/Undecided 31.88* 1,749 38.27** 318
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; see Appendix B for full list of majors.
Table 26 shows that ethnic and gender studies majors had the highest proportion of
undergraduates who would consider violence to suppress free speech, with the 65.26% of

87
students answering no and 58.82% of those answering yes both being significantly higher at 99%
confidence intervals than comparable numbers for the general population; these students were
the only ones where the majority in the group considered violence, and also the only ones for
whom talking with faculty about controversial topics meant they were less likely to consider
violence than if they did not engage with their professors. Students in all other majors are more
likely to consider violence if they answered yes to Q32.7 than if they answered no.
Undergraduates majoring in medicine, nursing, and health (23.95%), physical sciences and math
(25.28%), and engineering and computer science (25.65%) who did not discuss controversial
topics with their professors were the only ones who were significantly less likely than the general
student population to consider violence. Engineering and computer science students also
represented the biggest relative spread between students who do not talk to professors about
controversial topics (25.65%) and those that do (34.06%), the only set of majors where no
answers were more than double yes responses.
Results: RQ3
RQ3 investigates the influence of university administrators on an undergraduate student’s
tolerance for free speech. These questions from the survey instrument are relevant:
• Q18: How clear is it to you that your college’s administration protects free speech on
campus?
• Q19: If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how
likely is it that your college’s administration would defend the speaker’s right to
express their views?
• Q32.9: Do you talk to college administrators about controversial political issues?

88
Table 27
How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (RQ3)
% Consider
Violence
Not at all
clear
Not very
clear
Somewhat
clear
Very clear Extremely
clear
Survey
Question
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
Q18 32.09*
(892)
29.23
(2,695)
29.74
(7,137)
28.25+
(3,931)
25.12^^++
(1,303)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; + p < 0.05 and ++ p < 0.01 lower than not at
all clear in same row.
Table 27 shows that when students feel that it is not clear at all that their university
administrators protect free speech on campus, they are significantly more likely (with 95%
confidence) to consider violence than the overall population. Conversely, undergraduates who
feel that their administration is extremely clear about protecting campus free speech are
significantly less likely than the overall student sample to consider violence (at a 99% confidence
interval). Students who felt their campus administrators were in the middle three response
categories were comparable to the general sample in their consideration of violence.

89
Table 28
How Likely Would Administrators Defend a Controversial Speaker’s Rights? (RQ3)
% Consider
Violence
Not at all
likely
Not very
likely
Somewhat
likely
Very
likely
Extremely
likely
Survey
Question
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
%
(n)
Q19 33.57**
(1,052)
31.86*
(3,725)
29.74
(7,458)
26.01^^
(2,706)
28.13
(1,012)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; ++ p < 0.01 lower than not at all likely in
same row.
Table 28 shows the percentage of students who consider violence to suppress free speech
broken out by how likely they felt that administrators would defend a speaker’s right to express
their views if a controversy over offensive speech were to break out on campus. The results
indicate that students who responded in the bottom two boxes, not at all likely or not very likely,
were significantly higher in their consideration of violence than the overall sample. On the other
hand, students who responded very likely were significantly lower in their consideration of
violence than the general population at a 99% confidence interval, and those who responded
extremely likely were directionally lower than the general population. Additionally, students
giving top two box responses were significantly less likely to consider violence than those giving
bottom two box responses.

90
Table 29
Do You Talk to College Administrators About Controversial Issues? (RQ3)
% Consider Violence No Yes
Survey Question % (n) % (n)
Q32.9 28.07 (13,174) 48.29** (1,169)
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group.
Table 29 offers results for student likelihood to consider violence based on whether they
discuss controversial political issues with college administrators. Students who did were
significantly more likely than the general population as well as students who responded
oppositely. Those who did not were slightly less likely than the general population.
These results regarding the impact of student conversations with college administrators
are even more intense than they are for similar conversations with faculty (see Table 22). As
such, it would be reasonable to do the same demographic analysis of this question as done for
RQ1 and RQ2. At the same time, the results shown in Table 27 and Table 28 are based on
questions that directly link administrators’ behavior to student likelihood to consider violence to
suppress free speech; all other survey questions that are part of the theoretical framework are
more indirectly related.
Of these, the results of Table 27 are most stark. Therefore, additional demographic
analysis for RQ3 was based on the results of Table 27 which show how student perception
regarding how clear college administration commitment to protecting free speech on campus
affects their willingness to consider violence. To increase clarity, this analysis compares the top
box response of extremely clear with the four other potential responses, aggregating them into a

91
meta-category called not extremely clear. As with RQ1 and RQ2, this additional analysis shows
results by gender, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, and academic major.
Table 30
How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Gender) (RQ3)
% Consider Violence Not extremely clear Extremely clear
Gender % n % n
Man 29.74 4,438 23.57^+ 379
Woman 25.92^^ 7,801 21.94^^+ 650
Other 56.62** 1,827 52.42** 217
Prefer not to answer 36.99** 482 29.24 50
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; + p < 0.05 lower than not extremely clear in
same row.
All gender categories are less likely to consider violence when their college
administrators are extremely clear about protecting campus free speech than when they are not
extremely clear, and these differences are statistically significant for men and women at a 95%
confidence interval. In addition, men and women are significantly less likely than the overall
population to consider violence if they believe their administrators to be extremely clear in this
regard. By contrast, the majority of students who identify their gender as something other than
male or female are more likely to consider violence than the overall population regardless of how
clear their administrators are regarding protections for free speech.

92
Table 31
How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Sexual Orientation) (RQ3)
% Consider Violence Not extremely clear Extremely clear
Sexual orientation % n % n
Straight (heterosexual) 25.92^^ 7,801 20.31^^++ 687
Other 38.57** 5,879 35.88** 559
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; ++ p < 0.01 lower than not extremely clear in
same row.
All students regardless of gender are less likely to consider violence if their college
administrators are extremely clear about their protection for free speech, with the difference
among heterosexual students being significantly different at a 99% confidence interval.
Heterosexual students were also significantly less likely to consider violence than the general
population regardless of how their administrators behaved on this issue. Students who described
their sexual orientation in any other way were exactly the opposite, being significantly more
likely than the general population to consider violence regardless of how clear their
administrators were in protecting free speech.

93
Table 32
How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Race/Ethnicity) (RQ3)
% Consider Violence Not extremely clear Extremely clear
race/ethnicity % n % n
Hispanic/Latinx 30.56 1,762 18.88^++ 125
Black or African American 35.55** 1,411 29.48 158
Native American/Indigenous 53.91** 310 49.23** 32
Asian/Southeast Asian 36.25** 3,134 28.51+ 207
Middle Eastern 44.97** 532 48.81** 82
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 53.18** 159 62.07** 36
White 23.02^^ 5,182 20.34^^ 452
Two or More races 27.96 1,029 26.15 97
Other/no answer 34.59 1,136 30.00 114
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; ++ p < 0.01 lower than not extremely clear in
same row.
Table 32 shows results of analyzing Q32.9 results by race and ethnicity. Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Middle Eastern identifying students were the only groups to be
more likely to consider violence if their administrators were extremely clear about protecting
free speech on campus. For all other groups, the opposite was true, with Hispanic/Latinx and
Asian/Southeast Asian students being significantly less likely (at 99% and 95% confidence
intervals, respectively) to consider violence. Hispanic/Latinx students who had administrators

94
that were extremely clear about protecting free speech on campus were, in fact, the least likely of
all racial and ethnic groups to consider violence. White students were the only ethnic group to be
less likely than the general sample population to consider violence regardless of how clear their
administrators were about protecting free speech. All other groups were more likely to consider
violence if administrators were not extremely clear. The majority of students identifying as
Native American/Indigenous were significantly more likely than the total sample to consider
violence if their administrators were not extremely clear about protecting free speech; the same
was true for all Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students regardless of their administration’s
level of clarity. Students identifying as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native
American/Indigenous, and Middle Eastern were the only racial or ethnic groups who were
significantly more likely than the general sample population (at a 99% confidence interval) to
consider violence even if administrators were extremely clear that they protected free speech on
campus.

95
Table 33
How Clearly Do Administrators Protect Free Speech? (by Major) (RQ3)
% Consider Violence Not extremely clear Extremely clear
Academic major category % n % n
Business and Economics 30.67 2,533 24.86 225
Fine Arts and Performing Arts 29.69 426 16.90 24
Engineering and Comp Sci 27.05 2,226 19.69^+ 154
Physical Sciences and Math 25.86^^ 2,212 21.85^ 165
Social Sciences and Education 28.48 2,285 26.56 230
Humanities 32.41* 876 30.20 90
Ethnic and Gender Studies 65.96** 713 49.69**++ 80
Communications and Journalism 27.76 521 23.53 44
Law 22.94 164 20.69 18
Medicine, nursing, health 24.92^ 840 18.36 65
Other/Undecided 32.81** 1,859 31.95 208
Note: * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 higher than overall sample 28.96% (15,959) baseline of all
students in Consider group; ^ p < 0.05 and ^^ p < 0.01 lower than overall sample 28.96%
(15,959) baseline of all students in Consider group; + p < 0.05 and ++ p < 0.01 lower than not
extremely clear in same row; see Appendix B for full list of majors.
Table 33 shows results of analyzing Q32.9 results by academic major. Students of all
academic major categories were less likely to consider violence if they perceived their
administrators as being extremely clear about protecting free speech on campus; however, key
differences exist. On one hand, engineering and computer science majors as well as ethnic and

96
gender studies major were significantly less likely when this is true (with a confidence interval of
95% and 99%, respectively). On the other hand, ethnic and gender studies majors were the only
ones to be significantly more likely than the general sample population to consider violence
regardless of whether their administrators were extremely clear about protecting free speech.
Summary
These results analyzed demographic and psychographic differences between students
who feel that violence is never an acceptable response to speech with which they disagree (i.e.,
the Never group) and those that would consider violence in such circumstances (i.e., the
Consider group). The results are based on survey responses taken from 55,102 undergraduate
students in 2023 (Stevens, 2023). Overall, weighted survey results showed 27% of students
would consider violence, corresponding to an unweighted equivalent of 28.96% (since Stevens
shared only the raw data for this study, not the weighting scheme).
The study compared the two groups to the total sample by gender, sexual orientation,
graduation year, socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, academic major, political ideology,
geographic region of hometown, public versus private status of university. Of these gender,
sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, and academic major showed the most distinctive results;
therefore, these four categories formed the basis of more detailed analysis for the three research
questions.
RQ1 utilized seven survey questions as the basis of analysis. Of these, the most
noteworthy results were for survey question Q32.5, “Do you talk to friends about controversial
political issues?” Students who responded no were significantly more likely than the overall
sample to consider violence, 44.54% compared to 28.96%, respectively, at a 99% confidence
interval. By contrast, students who answered yes were significantly less likely than the overall

97
sample to consider violence, 24.30% compared to 28.96%, respectively, at a 99% confidence
interval.
RQ2 utilized four survey questions as the basis of analysis. The most noteworthy results
were for survey question Q32.7, “Do you talk to professors about controversial political issues?”
Over 82% of students responded no, and these students were substantially similar in their
likelihood to consider violence as the overall population. In contrast, the students who responded
yes were more likely to consider violence than the general sample population: 32.37% compared
to 28.96%, a statistically significant difference at a 99% confidence interval.
RQ3 utilized three survey questions as the basis of analysis. The most noteworthy results
were for survey question Q18, “How clear is it to you that your college’s administration protects
free speech on campus?” Students who responded not at all clear were significantly more likely
than the general population to consider violence, while those who responded extremely clear
were significantly less likely than the general population to consider violence. Students who gave
responses in between those two extremes were similar in their consideration of violence.
Across all three research questions, students identifying their gender as something other
than man or woman were consistently more likely to consider violence, even to the point of
being the majority of those students if they did not talk to friends about controversial issues,
regardless of whether they talked to professors about controversial issues, and no matter the level
of clarity of their campus administration’s commitment to protecting free speech on campus.
Students whose sexual orientation was other than straight (heterosexual) were significantly more
likely to consider violence than the general sample population, particularly if they did not talk to
friends about controversial issues and no matter the level of clarity of their campus
administration’s commitment to protecting free speech on campus. Among all racial and ethnic

98
groups, Native American/Indigenous, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Middle Eastern
groups had the highest likelihood of considering violence when looking through the filters of the
three research questions, and the majority or near-majority of students who identified in those
categories were likely to consider violence, regardless of how they responded to the key survey
questions mentioned above. In contrast, students identifying themselves as White were
significantly less likely than the overalls ample to consider violence, with Hispanic/Latinx
students also indexing low in this regard. Among all majors, ethnic and gender studies majors
consistently over-indexed in their likelihood to consider violence, always indexing the highest
for all relevant survey questions incorporated into the three research question, with proportions
often representing an overwhelming majority exceeding 70% of students willing to consider
violence to suppress free speech. These results, the implications thereof, recommendations of
practice, and I discuss recommendations for future research based on these results in the
following chapter.

99
Chapter Five: Discussion of Results and Recommendations
This final chapter opens by discussing the results of the data presented in Chapter Four. It
then provides three recommendations for practice which align with the results in the context of
the conceptual framework. Finally, the chapter offers recommendations for future research on
this topic.
Discussion: RQ1
RQ1 directly addresses part of the first, inner-most layer of the conceptual framework:
the microsystem. As Bronfenbrenner (1979) described in his ecological systems theory, this layer
deals with direct influences on an individual. Within the conceptual framework, the microsystem
examines the direct influences of undergraduate students at universities, particularly those with
whom they interact on a daily basis both in and out of the classroom.
Three of the survey questions (Q9, Q10, and Q26) directly address influence of other
students. One survey question (Q32.5) uses friends as a proxy for fellow undergraduates on
campus; at the same time, even if some or all of a student’s friends are off campus, they are still
part of the microsystem. Finally, three of the survey questions (Q8, Q11, and Q28) address
classmates indirectly, whether as part of the classroom environment (Q8 and Q28) or as one of
many outside influences such as students, professors, administration (Q11). Arguably, Q8 and
Q28 could be more appropriately considered to measure aspects of the mesosystem since they
deal with areas of interaction of microsystem elements; however, since none of the research
questions addressed the mesosystem directly, they were included in RQ1 to ensure their potential
relevance was evaluated.
Ultimately, Q32.5 is an important bellwether with regards to tolerance of free speech
among undergraduates. Among all subgroups of students who are more likely than the general

100
sample population to consider violence as a response to speech with which they disagree, this
consideration drops if and when they talk to friends about controversial political issues. There
are three parts to this result: (a) that they talk at all, (b) that they talk about controversial political
issues, and (c) that they have these conversations with friends, with (a) and (b) being indicative
of the kind of positive free speech culture discussed and espoused by Lukianoff and Schlott
(2023), Mchangama (2022), and The University of Chicago (Stone et al., 2015). RQ1 and RQ2
discuss the relevance of (c) vis-à-vis a willingness to have comparable conversations with faculty
and administration.
As the literature review in Chapter Two showed, there has been a multi-decade practice
of injecting critical race theory into many undergraduate student’s classrooms, orientation, and
other mandatory administrative training (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Jussim et al., 2023;
Lukianoff, 2012; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018; Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Therefore, it is
unsurprising that students in demographic groups whom Morgan (1996) called out as oppressed
are the ones most likely to consider violence, and that gender and ethnic studies majors are
overwhelmingly likely to consider violence. However, it is somewhat surprising then that
Hispanic/Latinx students who responded no to Q32.5 are less likely to consider violence than the
general population who responded similarly, and that both yes and no respondents are more
similar to White students than any other ethnic group.
While results from the other six survey questions are less dramatic than those for Q32.5,
it is noteworthy that students who gave middle-of-the-road responses were the ones most likely
to consider violence. One potential reason for such responses is that these students have a higher
propensity to act out against speech with which they disagree than they are to speak out against it
in academic or social settings. In this case, such students have a bias towards action rather than

101
discussion, whereas students who are very comfortable speaking their minds in public and do not
self-censor value discussion and become satiated by sharing potentially controversial ideas with
others. Another potential reason is that on one hand, deciding to state one’s opinion publicly,
whether in academic or social settings, is an inherently solo act; as such, these students may not
feel comfortable being so easily identifiable. On the other hand, students often take actions as
part of a group to suppress free speech on campus, whether through the heckler’s veto or through
violence. Nontrivially, the COVID-19 pandemic made the regular use of masks in public
acceptable, even encouraged, which in turn made anonymous participation in disruptive and
violent protest easier than it had been pre-pandemic.
Discussion: RQ2
RQ2, like RQ1, addresses the microsystem of this study’s conceptual framework based
on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory. For this question, the focus shifts to a
separate set of individuals who have a direct influence on undergraduate students at universities:
faculty. All four of the survey questions evaluated for RQ2 (Q6, Q7, Q27, and Q32.7) directly
address influence of other students.
Within this context, the largest subgroup of undergraduate students who would consider
violence in response to speech with which they disagree were those that were somewhat
comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial topic on their campus.
This result is consistent with responses from RQ1 where students who are at the extreme ends of
the response scale, either very uncomfortable or very comfortable, are less likely than those with
more tempered responses to consider violence. Potential explanations for this are also consistent
with one of those in RQ1, specifically that a strong preference to engage as an individual in
public debate with professors is a very different, even opposite, act than participating in violence

102
to quell an opposing opinion, which is often done as part of a group and/or while hiding their
faces behind masks. Students who are somewhat comfortable in verbal engagement have a
willingness to disagree with their professor, an authority figure, and such comfort could enhance
their comfort in engaging in violence to suppress free speech. On the other hand, the other
potential explanation given for RQ1, that speaking one’s mind provides an avenue to vent and
express disagreement in general, seems less applicable for RQ2 given that students who are very
comfortable are still significantly more likely to engage in violence than the general population;
this was not true regarding expressing views to their friends in person (see Table 13).
As with RQ1 and the responses to survey question Q32.5 (see Table 15), survey question
Q32.7 has three noteworthy parts: (a) that a student talks at all, (b) that they talk about
controversial political issues, (c) and that they talk about these issues with their professor.
However, unlike with RQ1 and survey question Q32.5, students who engage with professors as
such are more likely to consider violence (see Table 22). There are two potential explanations.
First, the interaction between professors and students might be adversarial as posited above, such
that a student’s engagement with faculty involves inherent disagreement, and therefore is an
indicator of someone willing to challenge authority; such verbal disagreement therefore becomes
a steppingstone to more active measures of censorship, cancel culture, and violence. Second the
faculty and undergraduates may be sympathetic, encouraging, and even radicalizing. In this
hypothetical case, a student may or may not have violent inclinations before their discussion with
faculty, but the professor with whom they engage sparks a desire to engage in more active
measures to suppress free speech, including violence. While these two possibilities are opposite
in nature, their potential presence in the data is not mutually exclusive, and part of the sample
responding yes to Q32.7 might do so for the first reason, while a different part does so for the

103
second. Moreover, I do not suspect that these two reasons are collectively exhaustive and that
other explanations could be driving students to their yes responses.
In general, results of more detailed analysis of Q32.7 using gender (see Table 23), sexual
orientation (see Table 24), race and ethnicity (see Table 25), and academic major (see Table 26)
are similar to those for Q32.5. Specifically, undergraduate students identifying as having a
gender other than male or female, those whose sexual orientation is not straight (heterosexual),
who identify racially or ethnically as Native American/Indigenous, Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander, and Middle Eastern, and who are ethnic and gender studies majors have the highest
incidence of considering violence regardless of whether they discuss controversial topics with
their faculty. Given that critical theorists in academia have claimed that free speech has hurt
oppressed groups instead of helping them (Beausoleil, 2019; Bérubé & Ruth, 2022; Brayboy,
2006; Delgado, 1993; Delgado & Stefancic, 2018; Matsuda, 1993; Tsesis, 2000), it is more than
coincidental that these groups have the highest incidence of considering violence. Furthermore, it
is particularly noteworthy that students who identify as having a gender other than male or
female are significantly more likely (at a 95% confidence interval) to consider violence to
suppress another person’s speech if they do not talk to faculty about controversial topics than if
they do; students who are Native American/ Indigenous, or whose academic major is in ethnic or
gender studies are directionally similar. It is not clear from the data or the literature why this may
be the case.
Discussion: RQ3
RQ3 is the only one which addresses the exosystem of this study’s conceptual framework
based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory. As such, the relevant questions
deal with the impact of college and university administrators on a student’s likelihood of

104
considering violence to suppress free speech. Unlike the survey questions used as part of RQ1 or
RQ2 which obliquely address classmates and faculty in the context of free speech, two of the
three questions used for RQ3 directly confronts this by asking how the respondents perceive their
college’s administrators clarity in protecting free speech as well as the likelihood to defend a
speaker’s right to express their view if a controversy over offensive speech erupted on campus
(survey question Q18 and Q19, respectively; see Appendix A). Results of Q18 showed that when
students perceived their administrators to be extremely clear—not merely somewhat clear or
even very clear—in their protection for free speech, they were significantly less likely to
consider violence than the overall population at a 99% confidence interval (see Table 27).
Moreover, this is nominally true for all cuts by gender (see Table 30), both categories of sexual
orientation (see Table 31), all racial and ethnic groups except Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
and Middle Eastern (see Table 32), and all academic major groupings (see Table 33).
These results are by far the most noteworthy of the entire study. Whereas this study
makes inferences, albeit important ones, regarding the impact of classmates (RQ1) or faculty
(RQ2) on a student’s likelihood to consider violence, RQ3 reveals clear, statistically significant
evidence that shows there is a distinct linkage between students who have university
administrators with an undeniable commitment to free speech principles and those students also
having a lower likelihood of considering violence. This analysis makes no claim about this
linkage being causal, yet the possibility that such a link could even partially exist is intriguing.
Recommendations
This section offers three recommendations based on the results above. Each of these
addresses specific research questions and can take advantage of opportunities to improve free

105
speech culture on campus. If implemented in concert, they can reinforce each other and create
synergies which could amplify positive effects of any singular recommendation.
Recommendation 1: Embrace the Chicago Statement and Kalven Report
The first recommendation of practice is for American colleges and universities to
wholeheartedly and unequivocally declare their support for (a) principles of free speech and free
inquiry on campus as best exemplified in the University of Chicago’s “Chicago Statement,” and
(b), adopt the Kalven report or similar ideals advocating institutional neutrality to leave advocacy
for any academic theory, political opinion, or societal philosophy to individual faculty members.
Additionally, bias response teams are incompatible with both free speech and institutional
neutrality; therefore, university administrators should dismantle any bias response teams to fully
comply with this recommendation. Results of RQ3 show that students who feel that their
university administrators are extremely clear about their protection of campus free speech are
significantly less likely to consider violence to suppress free speech. Implementing
Recommendation 1 would directly address these results, with the ultimate goal that such
institutional clarity will decrease student willingness to consider violence, thereby reversing the
negative impact on student learning (Marshall Faculty Council, 2021; Zhou & Barbaro, 2023).
Recommendation 2: Teach Undergraduates that it is Admirable to Disagree Civilly
The second recommendation for practice is for American colleges and universities to
develop new educational programs during new student orientations as well as mandatory classes
incorporated into the core curriculum and added to degree requirements. Such programs and
classes can and should encourage and enable undergraduate students to have more
communication and discussion on controversial issues with their friends. Moreover, such
programs should teach those students on how to have those discussions and the likely

106
disagreements that will ensue in a civil and respectful manner. Universities can measure the
effectiveness of these programs by doing pre- and post-training surveys measuring key attributes
described in this study. These actions can effectively counteract Barron’s (2018) observations
about a typical American being unable to engage in thoughtful discourse and reestablish the
university campus as a place where healthy disagreement and debate can occur without the selfcensorship that has been increasing in recent years (Zhou & Barbaro, 2023).
This recommendation is based on the results shown in relation to RQ1, particularly in
light of responses to survey question Q32.5 as shown in Table 15 through Table 18. The results
from RQ1 showing students most likely to identify with one of Morgan’s (1996) oppressed
groups are the ones most likely to consider violence. This linkage is not surprising given the
numerous CRT-based indoctrinations that have occurred during a student’s initial orientation and
in the classroom since 2014 (Chemerinsky & Gillman, 2017; Jussim et al., 2023; Lukianoff &
Schlott, 2023; Pluckrose & Lindsay, 2020). Yet the data shows that even these demographic
groups are less likely to consider violence when they speak to friends about controversial issues.
Therefore, the combination of (a) ending such crit-based and anti-racist-based training sessions,
and (b) replacing them with education on how to both disagree civilly and increase tolerance for
viewpoint diversity will likely be doubly effective. These actions, in turn, could reverse the selfcensorship that Zhou and Barbaro (2023) have been tracking, and the subsequent increase in
robust classroom debate will improve student learning (Marshall Faculty Council, 2021; Zhou &
Barbaro, 2023).
Recommendation 3: End Use of Diversity Statements in Hiring and Promotions
The third recommendation for practice is that American colleges and universities should
eliminate the use of diversity statements in any part of the faculty hiring and promotion process,

107
thereby reversing the trend of the past decade as described by FIRE (2024a), Paul and Maranto
(2021), and Tiede (2022). As seen in the examples guidelines given in Appendix C and samples
offered in Appendix D, E, and F, these statements explicitly give preference to candidates who
have already demonstrated the positionality- and intersectionality-based practice of DEI as
championed by critical theorists ((Beausoleil, 2019; Bérubé & Ruth, 2022; Brayboy, 2006;
Delgado, 1993; Delgado & Stefancic, 2018, Morgan, 1996; Tsesis, 2000).
As the literature review described, there have been three main criticisms to use of
diversity statements: (a) that they are a form of compelled speech, explicitly favoring a world
view espoused by critical theorists and inappropriately giving that view pride of place in
academia, (b) that they quell potential faculty members’ interest in pursuing a profession in
academia, particularly outside the social sciences where linkages to critical theory are debatable,
even tenuous, and (c) that some research shows these statements to be ineffective and potentially
counterproductive.
Results of RQ2 that students who speak to faculty about controversial issues are
significantly more likely to consider violence to suppress free speech with which they disagree
than those that do not. As discussed in Chapter Two, the lack of viewpoint diversity among
faculty has grown since 1995, and faculty who identify as liberal or socialist greatly outnumber
those who consider themselves to be conservative (Hurtado et al., 2012; Jussim et al., 2023;
Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023; Sax et al., 1996;). Additionally, STEM fields had the greatest
viewpoint diversity among their faculty (Langbert, 2018).
Therefore, it is not surprising that students in STEM majors consistently had the lowest
likelihood to consider violence. Similarly, results throughout the study that students in ethnic and
gender studies majors, disciplines whose faculty predominantly advocate and promulgate critical

108
theory to their students, have the highest likelihood to consider violence to suppress free speech
are consistent with Langbert (2018). As such, increasing viewpoint diversity in faculty through
the elimination of diversity statements would not only have a positive impact on free speech
culture within the classroom, it could also decrease the overall number of undergraduates who
would be willing to resort to violence as a response to speech they find objectionable.
Furthermore, eliminating the use of diversity statements would demonstrate a university’s
extreme commitment to free speech as discussed in the results for RQ3, thereby reinforcing the
actions supporting free speech and institutional neutrality discussion in Recommendation One.
This recommendation does not aim to eliminate critical theory or its proponents from
academia nor does it seek to give the opposite view hegemony in any university or academic
department. Rather, it aims to broaden the underlying theoretical and philosophical landscape to
enhance intellectual inquiry. Furthermore, this recommendation aims to foster robust discussion
and debate among faculty as well as between professors and their students. This recommendation
also would model for undergraduates that intelligent and well-credentialed people can be
passionate about and fiercely disagree with each other without resorting to violence. Such action
would undoubtedly have a positive impact on student learning, and in turn, it would likely have
similarly positive impacts outside university gates.
Limitations and Delimitations
The study has multiple limitations, which Creswell and Creswell (2022) define as
constraints or shortcomings which limit how much researchers can generalize the results. First,
the study relies on results of a third-party survey which, despite having many useful attributes, its
authors did not specifically design to directly answer the research questions above. In addition,
the study uses the raw data without applying the weights that Stevens (2023) used in his original

109
analysis. Moreover, survey questions Q32.5 and Q32.7 are somewhat ambiguous about whether
the relevant conversations occur inside or outside the classroom, thereby limiting what
conclusions the study can draw from the responses. Finally, the study uses crosstabs to infer a
relationship between students’ responses to the relevant survey questions and their willingness to
consider violence to suppress free speech. Such inferences are important and useful but not
definitive. As such, the study cannot and should not assume or claim that any of the independent
variables cause the willingness to consider violence.
The study has several delimitations due to its research design and objectives and the
inherent boundaries explicitly created by the researcher (Creswell & Creswell, 2022). First, this
study addressed three research questions related to a student’s fellow undergraduates, faculty,
and university administration and their respective impact on a student’s willingness to consider
violence. Other parts of the microsystem or exosystem and the entire mesosystem were not part
of the three research questions. Second, the survey did not capture responses outside the stated
data collection window. Also, the study only used other potential survey questions which did not
align with the theoretical framework per se as profiling variables instead of independent
variables in their own right. Finally, the study’s quantitative design limits its ability to
understand why students responded the way they did.
Recommendations for Future Research
Since this study reveals that an undergraduate student’s classmates, faculty, and
administrators have an impact on those students’ willingness to consider violence to suppress
speech with which they disagree, additional research can and should consider this topic. First,
future research can involve additional analysis of the underlying data set used for this study,
particularly its robust sample size of over 55,000 students. Such research could examine how

110
other independent variables outside of this study’s theoretical framework would create a richer
profile of students who consider violence. Moreover, such research can and should utilize
multivariate techniques to derive more confidence in the correlations between such variables.
Finally, future research should be longitudinal, both replicating research methods of this study
and also those new studies as recommended; given that FIRE and College Pulse fielded nearly
identical studies between 2020 and 2025, such research would be relatively straightforward.
While additional research based on the same survey instrument and data would certainly
yield worthwhile results, the questionnaire that FIRE and College Pulse uses for their survey is
not designed specifically to measure an undergraduate student’s willingness to consider violence
to suppress free speech, nor is it designed to understand the values and attitudes that drive such
behavior. Therefore, fielding original primary quantitative and qualitative research would be an
ideal way to increase understanding of these topics. Future original research would also benefit
from incorporating multivariate techniques, especially (a) conjoint or choice-based
methodologies as are regularly used in consumer market research, and (b) quantitative
segmentation methods utilizing factor analysis and k-means clustering. These methodologies
would allow the researcher to develop much more robust quantitative results to better understand
how much a campus with a strong free speech culture and/or set of explicit free speech
protections drive school choice vis-à-vis other factors (e.g., school rankings, average grade point
average and admissions test score, football team ranking, and tuition).
Conclusion
This study aimed to better understand some key drivers causing the decline of free speech
and rise of cancel culture on American university campuses, most notably with undergraduates’
willingness to consider violence to suppress speech with which they disagree. Given the drop in

111
viewpoint diversity on campus this century, particularly over the past decade, these trends are not
surprising. University administrators across the country have created campus cultures which are
at best ambivalent to and at worst actively hostile towards free speech in both concept and
practice, and the faculty and students on their campuses reflect these biases. That such an antifree speech culture exists in a country with the most robust and far-reaching free speech laws in
global history is as distressing as it is disappointing. This dissertation provides tangible evidence
that these problems are real, demonstrates the impact an undergraduate student’s classmates,
faculty, and administration have on their consideration of violence, and provides
recommendations which are actionable and measurable.
Violence should never be a response to speech. Universities and colleges in the United
States can and should do better, particularly given the critical role play in the world’s creation
and understanding of knowledge across all disciplines, they. By taking active steps to improve
undergraduate attitudes towards violence as a response to speech of any kind, American higher
education can be the bastion of inquiry and insight that became its hallmark in the 20th century.
More importantly, it can and should be at the vanguard of increasing the quantity and quality of
respectful dialogue and healthy debate throughout these divisive times. I am confident that a
robust campus free speech culture will enhance and reinforce one in the country as a whole, and
am optimistic that forward-thinking universities will make it happen.

112
References
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/250us616
Abrams, S. J. (2016, July 1). There are conservative professors. Just not in these states. The New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/opinion/sunday/there-areconservative-professors-just-not-in-these-states.html
Abrams, S. J. (2018, October 16). Think professors are liberal? Try school administrators. The
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/16/opinion/liberal-collegeadministrators.html
Aby, S. H. (2007). Angela Davis and the changing paradigm of academic freedom in the 1960s.
American Educational History Journal, 34(1), 289-301. Information Age Publishing.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquestcom.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/angela-davis-changing-paradigm-academicfreedom/docview/230048014/se-2
Academic Freedom Alliance (2022, August 22). [Statement calling for an end to required
diversity statements]. https://academicfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AFADEI-Statement-081822.pdf
Adams, J. (1765). A dissertation on the canon and feudal law. In C. F. Adams (Ed.), The works
of John Adams, second president of the United States (Vol. 3, p. 455). Little, Brown.
Adams, J. (1851). The works of John Adams, second president of the United States (C. F. Adams,
Ed., Vol. 6). Little, Brown.
Adams, J., & Jefferson, T. (1988). The Adams-Jefferson letters: The complete correspondence
between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (L. J. Cappon, Ed.). University
of North Carolina Press.

113
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S.
205 (2013). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-10
Agrawal, N. (2020, September 5). Controversy over USC professor’s use of Chinese word that
sounds like racial slur in English. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-05/usc-business-professorcontroversy-chinese-word-english-slur
Alkiviadu, N., Mchangama, J., & Mendiratta, R. (2020). Tool: Global handbook on hate speech
laws. The Future of Free Speech. https://futurefreespeech.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/Report_Global-Handbook-on-Hate-Speech-Laws.pdf
American Association of University Professors (n.d.). History of the AAUP. AAUP.
https://www.aaup.org/about/history-aaup
American Association of University Professors (1915). Declaration of principles on academic
freedom and academic tenure. AAUP. https://www.aaup.org/report/1915-declarationprinciples-academic-freedom-and-academic-tenure
The Associated Press. (2008, July 15). University says sorry to janitor over KKK book. NBC
News. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25680655
Austen, I. (2015, June 2). Canada’s forced schooling of Aboriginal children was ‘cultural
genocide,’ report finds. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/world/americas/canadas-forced-schooling-ofaboriginal-children-was-cultural-genocide-report-finds.html
Bains, P. (2020, June 2). Fire UCLA professor Gordon Klein. Change.org. Accessed May 26,
2024. https://www.change.org/p/ucla-fire-ucla-professor-gordon-klein
Barron, R. (2018). Arguing religion: A bishop speaks at Facebook and Google. Word on Fire.

114
Banou, T. (2024, April 29). Institutional neutrality has never been about politics: Critics of the
Kalven principles miss the point. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/institutional-neutrality-has-never-been-about-politics
Bejan, T. M. (2019). Two concepts of freedom (of speech). Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 163(2), 95-107. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/twoconcepts-freedom-speech-1/docview/2394545941/se-2
Bernardo, A. (2020, June 4). Email from Antonio Bernardo to the UCLA Anderson Community,
June 4, 2020. FIRE Research & Learn. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/emailantonio-bernardo-ucla-anderson-community-june-4-2020
Bérubé, M., & Ruth, J. (2022). It’s not free speech: Race, democracy, and the future of academic
freedom. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Best, J. (2020). Can normalization save society—or at least the sociology of deviance? Deviant
Behavior, 41(7), 913-915. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1735028
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/343us250
Beauchamp, Z. (2018). The myth of a campus free speech crisis: What a critic of my recent piece
on free speech in academia gets wrong. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-andpolitics/2018/8/31/17718296/campus-free-speech-political-correctness-musa-al-gharbi
Beausoleil, L. E. (2019). Free, hateful, and posted: Rethinking first amendment protection of
hate speech in a social media world. Boston College Law Review, 60(7), 2101-2144.
https://lira.bc.edu/work/sc/55221109-fbe6-4e26-a0ab-c492409b8c1e
Bill C-63, An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, 1st Session, 44th Parliament, 2024.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading

115
Blake, A. (2016, January 26). Here are the Megyn Kelly questions that Donald Trump is still
sore about. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/thefix/wp/2016/01/26/here-are-the-megyn-kelly-questions-that-donald-trump-is-still-soreabout/
Blasi, V. A. (2005). Holmes and the marketplace of ideas. Supreme Court Review, 2004(1), 1-45.
https://doi.org/10.1086/scr.2004.3536967
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2006). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban Review.
37(5), 425-446.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International
Encyclopedia of Education, 3(2), 37-43
California Education Code, § 94367 (1992).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§i
onNum=94367
CBS News (2023, December 5). Harvard, MIT, UPenn presidents testify before Congress about
antisemitism on campuses | full video [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oklC-xpSOWc
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-
1955/315us568
Chemerinsky, E., & Gillman, H. (2017). Free speech on campus. Yale University Press.
Chernow, R. (2004). Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Books.

116
Childs, F. L. (1957, December). A Dartmouth history lesson for freshmen. Dartmouth Alumni
Magazine | The Complete Archive.
https://archive.dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/article/1957/12/1/a-dartmouth-historylesson-for-freshmen
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021).
The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 118(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Clark, M. D. (2020). Drag them: A brief etymology of so-called “cancel culture”.
Communication and the Public, 5(3-4), 88-92.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047320961562
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1998
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/299
Cole, J. R. (2009). The great American university: Its rise to preeminence, its indispensable
national role, why it must be protected. PublicAffairs.
College Pulse (2023a). Campus climate 2023: Codebook [Survey codebook]
College Pulse (2023b). Demographics codebook.
Cooper, Y. (2017, June 1). Intersectionality. Career Convergence Web Magazine.
https://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/pt/sd/news_article/139052/_PARENT/CC_layout_deta
ils/false
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139-168.

117
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
method approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications
Darling, D. (2021, August 1). Why, as a Christian and an American, I got the COVID vaccine.
USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/08/01/why-christians-shouldget-covid-vaccine-daniel-darling/5413660001
Delgado, R. (1993). Words that wound: A tort action for racial insults, epithets, and name
calling. In M. J. Matsuda et al. (Eds.), Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive
speech, and the First Amendment. Routledge.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2018). Must we defend Nazis?: Why the first amendment should not
protect hate speech and white supremacy. NYU Press. (Original work published 1997)
Dershowitz, A. (2021). The case against the new censorship: Protecting free speech from big
tech, progressives, and universities. Hot Books.
Devine, P. G., & Ash, T. L. (2022, January). Diversity training goals, limitations, and promise: A
review of the multidisciplinary literature. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 403–429.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-060221-122215
Dover, T.L., Kaiser, C.R., & Major, B. (2020), Mixed signals: The unintended effects of
diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14: 152-181.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12059
Duarte, J., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political
diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, 1-
13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X14000430
Duke Law (n.d.-a). Donald Hindley, Brandeis University. Campus Speech. https://campusspeech.law.duke.edu/campus-speech-incidents/donald-hindley-brandeis-university/

118
Duke Law (n.d.-b). Taylor v. St. John’s university. Campus Speech. https://campusspeech.law.duke.edu/campus-speech-incidents/taylor-v-st-johns-university/
Dyson, F. J. (2015). Dreams of Earth and sky. New York Review Books.
Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Sayson, H. W., & RiosAguilar, C. (2012). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The American freshman: National
norms fall 2016. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2016.pdf
Ellis, J. J. (1997). American sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson. Vintage Books.
Epstein, R. A. (2020). The civil rights juggernaught. U. Ill. L. Rev., 1541.
https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Epstein.pdf
Fallon, K. (2021, December 29). 2021 proved once and for all that ‘cancel culture’ is total
bullshit. The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/2021-proved-once-and-for-allthat-cancel-culture-is-total-bullshit
Faris, R., Clark, J., Etling, B., Kaiser, J., Roberts, H., Schmitt, C., Tilton, C., & Benkler, Y.
(2020, October 29). Polarization and the pandemic: American political discourse, March
– May 2020. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2020-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3721653
Ferling, J. (1992). John Adams: A life. University of Tennessee Press.
FIRE (2023a). Campus disinvitation database. The Foundation for Individual Rights and
Expression. https://www.thefire.org/research/disinvitation-database/
FIRE (2023b, October 12). The wisdom of the University of Chicago’s ‘Kalven report.’ The
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https://www.thefire.org/news/wisdomuniversity-chicagos-kalven-report

119
FIRE (2024a). FIRE statement on the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion criteria in faculty
hiring and evaluation. FIRE Research & Learn. Retrieved May 27, 2024.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-statement-use-diversity-equity-and-inclusioncriteria-faculty-hiring-and
FIRE (2024b). Adoptions of an official position of institutional neutrality. FIRE Research &
Learn. Retrieved May 27, 2024. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/adoptionsofficial-position-institutional-neutrality
FIRE (2024c). Chicago statement: University and faculty body support. FIRE Research & Learn.
Retrieved May 27, 2024. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/chicago-statementuniversity-and-faculty-body-support
FIRE Intern (2015, July 15). The secret life of safe spaces. The Foundation for Individual Rights
and Expression. Retrieved May 27, 2024. https://www.thefire.org/news/secret-life-safespaces
Fish, S. E. (1994). There is no such thing as free speech: And that’s a good thing, too. Oxford
University Press, Incorporated.
Fish, S. E. (2019). The first: How to think about hate speech, campus speech, religious speech,
fake news, post-truth, and Donald Trump. Atria Books.
Florida, R., & Mellander, C. (2015). Segregated city: The geography of economic segregation in
America’s metros. Martin Prosperity Institute. https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:868382/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Foucault, M. (2001). The word parrhesia. In J. Pearson (Ed.), Fearless speech. (pp. 9-19).
Semiotext(e).

120
Franklin, B. (1722). Silence Dogood, no. 8, 9 July 1722. National Archives and Records
Administration. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0015
Franklin, B. (2003). The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin: With related documents.
Bedford/St. Martin's.
French, David (2022, October 7). When right cancels right. Sapir. 7(Autumn 2022).
https://sapirjournal.org/cancellation/2022/10/when-right-cancels-right/
Friedersdorf, C. (2023, July 3). The hypocrisy of mandatory diversity statements. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/hypocrisy-mandatory-diversitystatements/674611/
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/410/
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (1949).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/336/490/
Ginsburg, R. (1972). In favor of crying “fire” in a crowded theatre. The Southwestern Journal of
Philosophy,3(2), 91–98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43154885
Gooding v. Texas, 406 U.S. 518 (1972). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/518/
Gordon-Reed, A. (1997). Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American controversy.
University of Virginia Press.
Gottesman, A. (2021). The concept of isēgoria. Polis, 38(2), 175–198.
https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340321
Guterres, A. (2019, June 18). Secretary-general’s remarks at the launch of the United Nations
Strategy and plan of action on hate speech [as delivered] secretary-general. United
Nations. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2019-06-18/secretary-generals-

121
remarks-the-launch-of-the-united-nations-strategy-and-plan-of-action-hate-speechdelivered
Hagi, S. (2019, November 21). Cancel culture is not real—at least not in the way people think.
Time. https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/
Hamilton, A. (2003). Federalist No. 84: Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the
Constitution Considered and Answered. In C. Rossiter (Ed.), The federalist papers (pp.
237-245). Signet Classic. (Original work published 1787)
Hammer, J. (2021, February 5). The limits of ‘free speech.’ Newsweek.
https://www.newsweek.com/limits-free-speech-opinion-1567004
Hanson, E., Gamez, D., & Manuel, A. (2020, September). The residential school system.
Indigenous Foundations. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/residential-schoolsystem-2020/
Halley, J. E. (2024, February 27). Institutional neutrality or institutional deception? The Harvard
Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/column/council-on-academic-freedom-atharvard/article/2024/2/27/halley-institutional-neutrality-deception/
Hartocollis, A. (2024, May 6). M.I.T. will no longer require diversity statements for hiring
faculty. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/us/mit-diversitystatements-faculty-hiring.html
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/169/
Herre, B., & Roser, M. (2023, December 28). 200 years ago, everyone lacked democratic rights.
Now, billions of people have them. Our World in Data.
https://ourworldindata.org/democratic-rights

122
Hess, F. M., & Noguera, P. A. (2021). A search for common ground: Conversations about the
toughest questions in K-12 education. Teachers College Press.
Hofstadter, R. (1961). American higher education: A documentary history. University of
Chicago Press.
Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2020). A model of political bias in social science research.
Psychological Inquiry, 31(1), 73–85. https://doiorg.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722600
Honeycutt, N., Stevens, S.T., & Kaufmann, E. (2023). The academic mind in 2022: What faculty think
about free expression and academic freedom on campus. The Foundation for Individual Rights
and Expression. https ://www.thefire.org/research-learn/academic-mind-2022-what-facultythink-about-free-expression-and-academic-freedom
Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Pryor, J. H., Whang, H., & Tran, S. (2012). Undergraduate teaching
faculty: The 2010-2011 HERI faculty survey. Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA. https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/HERI-FAC2011-Monograph.pdf
Isaacson, W. (2003). Benjamin Franklin: An American life. Simon & Schuster
Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States (2024, May 27). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_protests_in_t
he_United_States&oldid=1225655666
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S.J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on
group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59: 690-707.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S.
___ (2018). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-1466

123
Jefferson, T. (1950). Letter to Edward Carrington (Jan. 16, 1787). In J. P. Boyd et al. (Ed.), The
papers of Thomas Jefferson (Vol. 11, pp. 48-50). Princeton University Press (Original
work published 1787).
Johnson, D. (1988, November 6). Censoring campus news. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/06/education/censoring-campus-news.html
Jussim, L., Honeycutt, N., Paresky, P., Careem, A., Finkelstein, D., & Finkelstein, J. (2023). The
radicalization of the American academy. In Zúquete, J.P. (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook
of Left-Wing Extremism, Volume 2. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doiorg.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/978-3-031-36268-2_19
Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013).
Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 104(3), 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030838
Kalven, Jr. H., Franklin, J. H., Kolb, G. J., Stigler, G., Getzels, J., Goldsmith, J., & White, G. F.
(1967, November 11). Kalven committee: Report on the university’s role in political and
social action. The University of Chicago.
Kalven, H. (1965). The Negro and the first amendment. Ohio State University Press.
Killian, J. (2021, July 6). Nikole Hanna-Jones declines UNC tenure offer, heads to Howard
University. NC Newsline. https://ncnewsline.com/2021/07/06/nikole-hannah-jonesdeclines-unc-tenure-offer-heads-to-howard-university/
Kissel, A. (2009, January 14). How the dorms are politicized: The case of the university of
Delaware. National Association of Scholars.
https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/how_the_dorms_are_politicized_the_case_of_the_univ
ersity_of_delaware

124
Kovalik, D. (2021). Cancel this book: the progressive case against cancel culture. Simon and
Schuster.
La Noue, G. (2023). DEI hiring statements: Common good ethics or partisan loyalty oaths?
Academic Questions, 36(2), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.51845/36.2.5
Ladd, C. (2017, September 23). There is no free speech crisis on campus. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/09/23/there-is-no-free-speech-crisis-oncampus/?sh=778cd59a28cb
Landauro, I. Bisserbe, N., & Gauthier-Villars, D. (2015, January 7). Charlie Hebdo office in
Paris attacked by gunmen; 12 killed. The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/shooting-at-paris-office-of-charlie-hebdo-magazine-kills12-1420630438
Lawrence, C. (1993). If he hollers let him go: Regulating racist speech on campus. In M. J.
Matsuda et al. (Eds.), Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the
First Amendment. Routledge.
Lofton, K. (2023). Cancel culture and other myths: Anti-fandom as heartbreak. The Yale Review,
11(1), 161-172. https://doi.org/10.1353/tyr.2023.0020
Lomawaima, K. T., & McCarty, T. L. (2002). When tribal sovereignty challenges democracy:
American Indian education and democratic ideal. American Educational Research
Journal, 39(2), 279-305.
Lukianoff, G. (2012). Unlearning liberty: Campus censorship and the end of American debate.
Encounter Books.
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and
bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin Press.

125
Lukianoff, G., & Schlott, R. (2023). The canceling of the American mind: Cancel culture
undermines trust and threatens us all—but there is a solution. Simon & Schuster.
Madison, J. (2003). Federalist No. 10: The same subject continued: The union as a safeguard
against domestic faction and insurrection. In C. Rossiter (Ed.), The federalist papers (pp.
45-50). Signet Classic. (Original work published 1787)
Madison, J. (2003). Federalist No. 55: The total number of the House of Representatives. In C.
Rossiter (Ed.), The federalist papers (pp. 190-195). Signet Classic. (Original work
published 1788)
Malik, N. (2019, September 3). The myth of the free speech crisis: How overblown fears of
censorship have normalized hate speech and silenced minorities. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/03/the-myth-of-the-free-speech-crisis
Marshall Faculty Council (MFC) (2022). [Report summarizing findings of MFC’s analysis of
survey conducted to assess reactions to events culminating in Prof. Greg Patton’s being
replaced in his GSBA 542 class]
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7214117/Marshall-School-Report.pdf
Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 12, §§ 11H-11J.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Chapter12/Section11H
Mastony, C. (2024, December 5). University sets policy on diversity statements: Decision
follows recommendation by faculty committee. The University Record.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/university-sets-policy-on-diversity-statements/
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1293
Mather House (n.d.). About Mather. Harvard University. https://mather.harvard.edu/aboutmather

126
Mather, R. D. (2018, May 31). Continued political bias in social psychology. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-conservative-socialpsychologist/201805/continued-political-bias-in-social-psychology
Matsuda, M. J. (1993). Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim’s story. In M. J.
Matsuda et al. (Eds.), Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the
First Amendment. Routledge.
Mchangama, J. (2022). Free speech: A history from Socrates to social media. Basic Books.
McNamara, P. (2024, March 21). Sedition act of 1798 (1798). The Free Speech Center.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/sedition-act-of-1798/
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Hate speech. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 25,
2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech
Morey, A. (2015, November 23). Students, admins cite ‘safe spaces’ in seeking limits to media
coverage. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https
://www.thefire.org/news/students-admins-cite-safe-spaces-seeking-limits-media-coverage
Morgan, K. P. (1996). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational
(in-)equity. In A. Diller et al., The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, and
politics (pp. 105-122). Westview Press.
Morris, R. B. (1973). Seven who shaped our destiny: The founding fathers as revolutionaries.
Harper & Row.
Morrison, J. H. (2005). John Witherspoon and the founding of the American republic. University
of Notre Dame Press.
Murray, C. (2012). Coming apart: The state of white America, 1960-2010. Crown
Forum/Random House.

127
New Jersey Statutes, § 18A:3B-71 (2020). https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-18a/
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/81-55
The New York Times and the Siena College Research Institute (2022). February 9-22, 2022.
1,507 United States Residents, Age 18+. MOE +/1 3.1%.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/free-speech-poll-nyt-and-sienacollege/ef971d5e78e1d2f9/full.pdf
Newman, K. S. (2025, March 20). [Letter addressed to provosts/executive vice chancellors and
academic council chair Cheung: Re: Diversity statements at the University of California].
Retrieved from https://ucop.edu/communications/_files/2025-03-20-provost-ltr-rediversity-statements.pdf
O'Neil, R. M. (2012). Hate speech, fighting words, and beyond—why American law is unique.
Albany Law Review, 76(1), 467-498. https://www.albanylawreview.org/article/69939-
hate-speech-fighting-words-and-beyond-why-american-law-is-unique
Ortner, D. (2021). In the name of diversity: Why mandatory diversity statements violate the first
amendment and reduce intellectual diversity in academia. Cath. UL Rev., 70, 515.
https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol70/iss4/6
Paul, J. D., and Maranto, R. (2021, November). Other than merit: The prevalence of diversity,
equity, and inclusion statements in university hiring. American Enterprise Institute.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Other-than-merit-The-prevalence-ofdiversity-equity-and-inclusion-statements-in-university-hiring.pdf
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/510

128
Pinker, S. (2015, January 27). Why free speech is fundamental. Boston Globe.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/01/26/why-free-speechfundamental/aaAWVYFscrhFCC4ye9FVjN/story.html
Piro, G. (2022, April 22). Trend of racially segregated campus events is putting institutions on
dangerous legal ground. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https
://www.thefire.org/news/trend-racially-segregated-campus-events-putting-institutionsdangerous-legal-ground
Pluckrose, H., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Cynical theories: How activist scholarship made everything
about race, gender, and identity―and why this harms everybody. Pitchstone Publishing
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675
Rabinowitz, D. (2008, July 7). American politics aren’t ‘post racial’. The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121538889902431161
Ridder-Symoens, H. de (Ed.). (1992). Universities in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University
Press.
Riemer, N. (2007). James Madison: Creating the American Constitution. CQ Press.
Robertson, K. (2021, May 19). Nikole Hannah-Jones denied tenure at University of North
Carolina. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/19/business/media/nikole-hannah-jones-unc.html
Robinson, T. R., & Shah, N. H. (2024, June 3). Harvard faculty of arts and sciences will no
longer require diversity statements. The Harvard Crimson.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/6/4/dei-faculty-hiring-stopped/
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-329

129
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1956/582
Roth, M. S. (2019). Safe enough spaces: A pragmatist’s approach to inclusion, free speech, and
political correctness on college campuses. Yale University Press.
The Royal Society. (n.d.). History of the Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/about-us/whowe-are/history/
Sachs, J. A. (2018, March 16). The ‘campus free speech crisis’ is a myth. Here are the facts. The
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkeycage/wp/2018/03/16/the-campus-free-speech-crisis-is-a-myth-here-are-the-facts/
Sachs, J. A. (2018, April 27). There is no campus free speech crisis: A close look at the evidence.
Niskanen Center. https://www.niskanencenter.org/there-is-no-campus-free-speech-crisisa-close-look-at-the-evidence/
Saiger, A. J. (2024, March 26). How institutional speech erodes academic freedom. [Fordham
Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4773479]. The Free Inquiry Papers. American
Enterprise Institute Press, forthcoming 2024. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4773479
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage
Sampson, K. J. (2008, May 9). My ‘racial harassment’ nightmare. New York Post.
https://nypost.com/2008/05/09/my-racial-harassment-nightmare/
Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Arredondo, M., & Korn, W. S. (1996). The American college teacher:
National norms for the 1995-96 HERI faculty survey. Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
https://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/FAC/Norms/Monographs/TheAmericanCollegeTea
cher1995To1996.pdf

130
Saxonhouse, A. W. (2005). Free speech and democracy in ancient Athens (1st ed.). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616068
Schenck v. United States (1919), 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/
Schrecker, E. (1980). Academic freedom and the cold war. The Antioch Review, 38(3), 313–327.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4638328
Schmaling, K. B., Trevino, A. Y., Lind, J. R., Blume, A. W., & Baker, D. L. (2015). Diversity
statements: How faculty applicants address diversity. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 8(4), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038549
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Shields, J. A., & Dunn, Sr., J. M. (2016). Passing on the right: Conservative professors in the
progressive university. Oxford University Press.
Skaaning, S.-E., & Krishnarajan, S. (2022). Who cares about free speech? Findings of a global
survey of support for free speech. The Future of Free Speech.
https://futurefreespeech.org//wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Report_Who-cares-about-freespeech_21052021.pdf
Smith, E. (2020, February 22). The university ‘free speech crisis’ has been a rightwing myth for
50 years. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/22/university-free-speech-crisiscensorship-enoch-powell

131
Speech First (2022, July). 2022 free speech in the crosshairs: Bias reporting on college
campuses. https://speechfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SF-2022_Bias-Responseteam-and-Reporting-System-Report_Final.pdf
Socha, M. (2004). Double standard: A comparison of British and American defamation law.
Penn State International Law Review, 23(2), 471–490.
https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol23/iss2/9/
Stevens, S. T. (2022). 2022-2023 college free speech rankings: What is the state of free speech
on America’s college campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
https://reports.collegepulse.com/college-free-speech-rankings-2022
Stevens, S. T. (2023). 2024 college free speech rankings: What is the state of free speech on
America’s college campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. https
://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings
Stone, G. R., Bertrand, M., Olinto, A., Siegler, M., Strauss, D. A., Warren, K. W., & Woodward,
A. (2015). Report of the committee on freedom of expression. University of Chicago.
https://provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.
pdf
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.62.4.271
Sunstein, C. (1999, December 13). The law of group polarization (John M. Olin Program in Law
and Economics Working Paper No. 91).
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/542/#

132
Taylor, R. (2020). “Columbia exchange” (the impact of 15th and 16th century transatlantic
trade on biodiversity) [PowerPoint slides]. The Foundation for Individual Rights and
Expression. https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2020/10/08135033/early-golbalcommodities-2.pptx.zip
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/
Tiede, H.-J. (2022). The 2022 AAUP survey of tenure practices. American Association of
University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/report/2022-aaup-survey-tenure-practices
Tsesis, A. (2000). The empirical shortcomings of first amendment jurisprudence: Historical
perspective on the power of hate speech. Santa Clara Law Review, 40(3), 729-786.
United Nations (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. United Nations.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
UC Berkeley (n.d.). Free speech. Free Speech. https://www.berkeley.edu/free-speech/
(n.d.). Guidelines for applicant writing statement. Retrieved March 26, 2025.
https://health.ucdavis.edu/anesthesiology/Faculty-Development/PDFs/Diversity-StatementGuide.pdf
UC San Diego (n.d.-a). Contributions to Diversity Statements. Retrieved May 26, 2025.
https://facultydiversity.ucsd.edu/recruitment/contributions-to-diversity.html
UC San Diego (n.d.-b). Statement of Personal Contributions to Diversity. Retrieved May 26,
2025. https://facultydiversity.ucsd.edu/recruitment/filesrecruitmentpage/DiversityStatementBiology.pdf
UC San Diego (n.d.-c). Statement of Contributions to Diversity. Retrieved May 26, 2025.
https://facultydiversity.ucsd.edu/recruitment/filesrecruitmentpage/Physical%20Sciences%20Statement_C2D_2_Redacted.pdf

133
UC San Diego (n.d.-d). [Untitled sample contributions to diversity statement, engineering].
Retrieved May 26, 2025. https://facultydiversity.ucsd.edu/recruitment/filesrecruitmentpage/engineeringC2D_Redacted1.pdf
UCLA (n.d.). Diversity Statements. Retrieved May 26, 2025.
https://career.ucla.edu/resources/diversity-statements/
The University of Chicago (n.d.). Free Expression. Retrieved May 24, 2024.
https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/
U.S. Census Bureau (2022, February 24). Figure 1: population age 25 and over by educational
attainment: 1940-2021. Current Population Survey (CPS) Historical Time Series
Visualizations. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/timeseries/demo/cps-historical-time-series.html
U.S. Census Bureau (2023, October 11). Census Bureau releases new data showing the highest
school enrollment count in years. [Press release number CB23-TPS.106].
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/highest-school-enrollmentcount.html
U.S. Const. amend. I.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality and Quantity,
40(3), 435–456.
Van Swol, L. M. (2009). Extreme members and group polarization. Social Influence, 4:3, 185-
199, https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/15534510802584368

134
Vermeule, A. (2020, March 31). Beyond originalism. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/common-goodconstitutionalism/609037/
Villaverde, L. E. (2008). Feminist theories and education: Primer. Peter Lang.
Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-895
Volokh, E. (2020a, September 9). Letter from USC Marshall school of business alumni about the
“neige” / Prof. Greg Patton controversy. The Volokh Conspiracy. Reason.com.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/07/letter-from-usc-marshall-school-of-businessalumni-about-the-neige-prof-greg-patton-controversy/
Volokh, E. (2020b, September 25). USC Marshall business school dean e-mail on the Greg
Patton / “neige” controversy. The Volokh Conspiracy. Reason.com.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/09/25/usc-marshall-business-school-dean-e-mail-on-thegreg-patton-neige-controversy/
Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press.
Wang, M. L., Gomes, A., Rosa, M., Copeland, P., & Santana, V. J. (2023, March). A systematic
review of diversity, equity, and inclusion and antiracism training studies: Findings and
future directions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 14(3), 156–171.
https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibad061
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-226
Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/1107%20MISC
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

135
Weinstein, J. (2011). Extreme speech, public order, and democracy: Lessons from the masses. In
Hare, I., & Weinstein, J. (Eds.), Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University
Press. 23-61. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0003
White, K. (2018, June 28). Fire in a crowded theater. Legal Talk Network. Retrieved May 23,
2024. https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fire-in-a-crowdedtheater/
White, K. (2022, December 24). “The first amendment isn’t absolute.” Sure, but so what? The
Popehat Report. https://popehat.substack.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute
Wike, R., & Simmons., K. (2015, November 8). Global support for principle of free expression,
but opposition to some forms of speech. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/Pew-Research-CenterDemocracy-Report-FINAL-November-18-2015.pdf
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1453
Yglesias, M. (2018, March 12). Everything we think about the political correctness debate is
wrong. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/politicalcorrectness-data
Zhou, S., & Barbaro, N. (2023). Understanding student expression across higher ed: Heterodox
academy’s annual campus expression survey. Heterodox Academy.

136
Appendix A: Survey Codebook
This appendix replicates the survey codebook below verbatim in its entirety as published
by College Pulse (2023) to ensure clarity, accuracy, and transparency.
Q1: How often would you say that you feel anxious?
1)Never
2)Less than half the time
3)About half the time
4)Most of the time, nearly every day
5)Always
Q2: How often would you say that you feel lonely or isolated?
1)Never
2)Less than half the time
3)About half the time
4)Most of the time, nearly every day
5)Always
Q3: How often would you say that you feel like you have no time for yourself?
1)Never
2)Less than half the time
3)About half the time
4)Most of the time, nearly every day
5)Always
Q4: How often would you say that you feel depressed?
1)Never

137
2)Less than half the time
3)About half the time
4)Most of the time, nearly every day
5)Always
Q5: How often would you say that you feel stressed, frustrated, or overwhelmed?
1)Never
2)Less than half the time
3)About half the time
4)Most of the time, nearly every day
5)Always
Q6: How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus?
**Publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic.**
1)Very uncomfortable
2)Somewhat uncomfortable
3)Somewhat comfortable
4)Very comfortable
Q7: How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus?
**Expressing disagreement with one of your professors about a controversial
political topic in a written assignment.**
1) Very uncomfortable
2) Somewhat uncomfortable
3) Somewhat comfortable
4) Very comfortable

138
Q8: How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus?
**Expressing your views on a controversial political topic during an in-class
discussion.**
1)Very uncomfortable
2)Somewhat uncomfortable
3)Somewhat comfortable
4)Very comfortable
Q9: How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus?
**Expressing your views on a controversial political topic to other students
during a discussion in a common campus space such as a quad, dining hall, or
lounge.**
1)Very uncomfortable
2)Somewhat uncomfortable
3)Somewhat comfortable
4)Very comfortable
Q10: How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus?
**Expressing an unpopular political opinion to your fellow students on a social
media account tied to your name.**
1)Very uncomfortable
2)Somewhat uncomfortable
3)Somewhat comfortable
4)Very comfortable

139
Q11: On your campus, how often have you felt that you could not express your
opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration
would respond?
1)Never
2)Rarely
3)Occasionally
4)Fairly often, a couple times a week
5)Very often, nearly every day
Q12: Please share a moment where you personally felt you could not express your
opinion on your campus because of how you thought other students, a professor,
or the administration would respond.
Only asked if: (1) Did not answer "Never" or "Rarely" to "On your campus, how
often have you felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of
how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?"
Text
Q13: How worried are you about damaging your reputation because someone
misunderstands something you have said or done?
1)Not at all worried
2)Not very worried
3)Worried a little
4)Worried a lot
Q14: How much pressure do you feel to avoid discussing controversial topics in
your classes?

140
1)No pressure at all
2)Some pressure
3)A good deal of pressure
4)A great deal of pressure
Q15: How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following
action to protest a campus speaker? **Shouting down a speaker to prevent them
from speaking on campus.**
1) Always acceptable
2) Sometimes acceptable
3) Rarely acceptable
4) Never acceptable
Q16: How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following
action to protest a campus speaker? **Blocking other students from attending a
campus speech.**
1)Always acceptable
2)Sometimes acceptable
3)Rarely acceptable
4)Never acceptable
Q17: How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following
action to protest a campus speaker? **Using violence to stop a campus speech.**
1)Always acceptable
2)Sometimes acceptable
3)Rarely acceptable

141
4)Never acceptable
Q18: How clear is it to you that your college’s administration protects free speech
on campus?
1)Not at all clear
2)Not very clear
3)Somewhat clear
4)Very clear
5)Extremely clear
Q19: If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how
likely is it that your college’s administration would defend the speaker's right to
express their views?
1)Not at all likely
2)Not very likely
3)Somewhat likely
4)Very likely
5)Extremely likely
Q20: Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a
range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school
ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the
following idea? **Transgender people have a mental disorder.**
1)Definitely should not allow this speaker
2)Probably should not allow this speaker
3)Probably should allow this speaker

142
4)Definitely should allow this speaker
Q21: Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a
range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school
ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the
following idea? **Abortion should be completely illegal.**
1)Definitely should not allow this speaker
2)Probably should not allow this speaker
3)Probably should allow this speaker
4)Definitely should allow this speaker
Q22: Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a
range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school
ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the
following idea? **Black Lives Matter is a hate group.**
1)Definitely should not allow this speaker
2)Probably should not allow this speaker
3)Probably should allow this speaker
4)Definitely should allow this speaker
Q23: Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a
range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school
ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the
following idea? **The Second Amendment should be repealed so that guns can be
confiscated.**
1)Definitely should not allow this speaker

143
2)Probably should not allow this speaker
3)Probably should allow this speaker
4)Definitely should allow this speaker
Q24: Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a
range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school
ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the
following idea? **Religious liberty is used as an excuse to discriminate against
gays and lesbians.**
1)Definitely should not allow this speaker
2)Probably should not allow this speaker
3)Probably should allow this speaker
4)Definitely should allow this speaker
Q25: Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a
range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school
ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who previously expressed the
following idea? **Structural racism maintains inequality by protecting White
privilege.**
1)Definitely should not allow this speaker
2)Probably should not allow this speaker
3)Probably should allow this speaker
4)Definitely should allow this speaker
Q26: How often do you self-censor during conversations with other students on
campus?

144
1)Never
2)Rarely
3)Occasionally
4)Fairly often, a couple times a week
5)Very often, nearly every day
Q27: How often do you self-censor during conversations with your professors?
1)Never
2)Rarely
3)Occasionally
4)Fairly often, a couple times a week
5)Very often, nearly every day
Q28: How often do you self-censor during classroom discussions?
1)Never
2)Rarely
3)Occasionally
4)Fairly often, a couple times a week
5)Very often, nearly every day
Q29: Compared to when you started college, are you now more or less likely to
self-censor on campus?
1)Much less likely
2)Less likely
3)About the same
4)More likely

145
5)Much more likely
Q30: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?
Select up to 22 options
Q30.1: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Abortion
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.2: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Affirmative action
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.3: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: China
0)No
1)Yes

146
Q30.4: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Climate
change
0) No
1) Yes
Q30.5: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Crime
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.6: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Economic inequality
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.7: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Freedom of speech
0)No
1)Yes

147
Q30.8: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Gay
rights
0) No
1) Yes
Q30.9: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Gender
inequality
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.10: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Gun
control
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.11: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Immigration
0)No

148
1)Yes
Q30.12: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Inflation
0) No
1) Yes
Q30.13: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: The
Israeli/Palestinian conflict
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.14: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Police
misconduct
0) No
1) Yes
Q30.15: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Racial
inequality

149
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.16: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Religion
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.17: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: Sexual
assault
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.18: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: The
Supreme Court
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.19: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are

150
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?:
Transgender rights
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.20: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: War in
Ukraine
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.21: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: All of
the above
0)No
1)Yes
Q30.22: Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain
issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are
difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus?: None
of the above
0)No
1)Yes

151
Q31: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?
Select up to 20 options
Q31.1: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Asian student groups
0)No
1)Ye
Q31.2: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Black or African American
student groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.3: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Hispanic/Latino student
groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.4: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Sororities or fraternities
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.5: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: LGBTQ+ student groups

152
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.6: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Christian student groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.7: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Jewish student groups
0) No
1) Yes
Q31.8: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Muslim/Islamic student
groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.9: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register as
student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Hindu student groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.10: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register
as student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Atheist/agnostic/secular
student groups
0)No

153
1)Yes
Q31.11: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register
as student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Republican student
groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.12: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register
as student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Democratic student
groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.13: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register
as student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Politically conservative
student groups
0)No
1)Yes
Q31.14: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register
as student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Politically liberal
student groups
0) No
1) Yes

154
Q31.15: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able to register
as student organizations and receive student activity fees?: Black Lives Matter
student groups
0) No
1) Yes
Q31.16: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able
to register as student organizations and receive student activity fees?:
Pro-Israeli student groups
0) No
1) Yes
Q31.17: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able
to register as student organizations and receive student activity fees?:
Pro-Palestinian student groups
0) No
1) Yes
Q31.18: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able
to register as student organizations and receive student activity fees?:
Other student groups
0) No
1) Yes
Q31.19: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able
to register as student organizations and receive student activity fees?:

155
All of the above
0) No
1) Yes
Q31.20: Which of the following groups on your campus should be able
to register as student organizations and receive student activity fees?:
None of the above
0) No
1) Yes
Q32: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?
Select up to 14 options
Q32.1: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Parents
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.2: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?:
Grandparents
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.3: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Siblings
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.4: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?:
Extended family
0) No

156
1) Yes
Q32.5: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Friends
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.6: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Coworkers
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.7: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Professors
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.8: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Academic advisor
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.9: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: College
administrators
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.10: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Therapist or
mental health counselor
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.11: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: Athletic
teammates

157
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.12: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?:
Athletic coach
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.13: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: All of
the above
0) No
1) Yes
Q32.14: Who do you talk to about controversial political issues?: None
of the above
0) No
1) Yes
Q33: In politics today, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or
something else?
1) Strong democrat
2) Weak democrat
3) Independent, lean democrat
4) Independent
5) Independent, lean republican
6) Weak republican
7) Strong republican

158
8) Other
9) Write in
Q34: Using the following scale, how would you describe your political beliefs?
1) Very liberal
2) Somewhat liberal
3) Slightly liberal
4) Moderate, middle-of-the-road
5) Slightly conservative
6) Somewhat conservative
7) Very conservative
8) I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative
9) Haven’t thought much about this
Q35: Which of the following best describes your political beliefs? Only asked if:
(1) Answered "I do not identify as a liberal or a conservative" to "Using the
following scale, how would you describe your political beliefs?"
1) Democratic socialist
2) Libertarian
3) Other
4) Write in
Q36: What's your GPA? *(Optional)*
Numeric

159
Appendix B: Demographics Codebook
This appendix replicates the demographics codebook below verbatim in its entirety as
published by College Pulse (2023) to ensure clarity, accuracy, and transparency.
Age: How old are you?
Encoding Corresponds to Actual Age
Athlete: Are you a varsity or club athlete?
1) Varsity
2) Club
3) None
4) Other
FinancialAid: Do you receive financial aid?
1) Yes
2) No
3) Other
Gender: Which of the following genders do you most identify with?
1) Man
2) Woman
3) Nonbinary
4) Agender
5) Genderqueer or genderfluid
6) Unsure
7) Prefer not to say
Geography: What region of the US is your hometown in, or are you an

160
international student?
1) New England
2) Mid-Atlantic
3) Midwest
4) South
5) West
6) Non-Continental
7) International
8) Other
Greek: Are you affiliated?
1) Fraternity
2) Sorority
3) Coed
4) None
5) Other
Highschool: What type of high school did you go to?
1) Public
2) Private
3) Parochial
4) Homeschool
5) Other
IssueImportance: As you think about the upcoming 2020 presidential election,
which of the following issues is the single MOST important to you personally?

161
1) Abortion and reproductive health
2) Cost of education
3) Immigration
4) Gun policy
5) Racial inequality
6) Treatment of LGBT people
7) The growing gap between rich and poor
8) The environment and climate change
9) Foreign policy
10) Other
Legacy: Are you a legacy student?
1) Yes
2) No
3) Other
Major: Please select your department/your major(s), or intended major(s)
1) Accounting
2) African/Afro-American Studies
3) Agricultural/Food Sciences
4) Animal Science
5) Anthropology
6) Archaeology
7) Architecture
8) Art History

162
9) Asian/Mideast Lang & Lit
10) Asian/Mideast Studies
11) Physics and Astronomy
2) Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
13) Biological Sciences
14) Business
15) Chemistry
16) Classics
17) Cognitive Science
18) Communication
19) Computer Science
20) Dance
21) Data Science
22) Development Studies
23) Digital Media Design
24) Earth Sciences
25) Economics
26) Education
27) Engineering Sciences
28) English
29) Environmental Studies
30) Ethnicity and Race Studies
31) European Cultural Studies

163
32) Fashion
33) Film and Media Studies
34) Finance
35) Fine Arts
36) French and Italian
37) Geography
38) German Studies
39) History
40) Hotel Administration
41) International Relations
2) Jewish Studies
43) Lat Am/Latino/Carib Studies
44) Law/Criminology
45) Linguistics
46) Marketing
47) Mathematics
48) Music
49) Native American Studies
50) Neuroscience
51) Nursing
52) Other
53) Philosophy
54) Physical Education

164
55) Political Science
56) Portuguese and Brazilian Studies
57) Pre-Medical
58) Psychological and Brain Sciences
59) Public Health
60) Public Policy
61) Real Estate
62) Religion
63) Robotics and Intelligent Systems
64) Russian
65) Sociology
66) Spanish and Portuguese
67) Statistics
68) Studio Art
69) Theater
70) Undecided
71) Urban Studies
72) Visual Arts
73) Women’s and Gender Studies (and Sexuality)
OnlineClasses: Are you taking in-person courses or online courses?
1) In-person only
2) In-person and online
3) Online only

165
Orientation: What is your sexual orientation?
1) Gay/lesbian
2) Straight (heterosexual)
3) Bisexual
4) Pansexual
5) Queer
6) Fluid
7) Same-gender-loving
8) Asexual or aromantic
9) Unsure
10) Questioning
11) Other
PoliticalLeaning: In politics today, do you consider yourself a Republican,
Democrat, or something else?
1) Strong Democrat
2) Weak Democrat
3) Independent, lean Democrat
4) Independent
5) Independent, lean Republican
6) Weak Republican
7) Strong Republican
8) Something else
PublicOrPrivate: PublicOrPrivate

166
1) Private for-profit
2) Public
3) Private not-for-profit
Race: Which of the following races or ethnicities do you most identify with?
1) Hispanic / Latinx
2) Black or African-American
3) Native American/Indigenous
4) Asian/Southeast Asian
5) Middle Eastern
6) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
7) White
8) Other
9) Two or more races
Religion: What is your present religion, if any?
1) Protestant (such as Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Jehovah’s Witness,
etc.)
2) Roman Catholic (Catholic)
3) Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/LDS)
4) Orthodox Christian
5) Jewish (Judaism)
6) Muslim (Islam)
7) Buddhist
8) Hindu

167
9) Atheist (do not believe in God)
10) Agnostic (not sure if there is a God)
11) Nothing in particular
12) Just Christian
13) Other
SocioeconomicStatus: Thinking about your family's financial situation when you
were growing up, how would you describe your family's social class?
1) Upper class
2) Upper-middle class
3) Middle class
4) Working class
5) Lower class
StudentType: What best describes your affiliation with your university?
1) Undergrad student
2) Graduate student
3) Exchange or visiting student
4) Faculty
5) Staff
6) Alumni
TwoYearFourYear: TwoYearFourYear
1) Not applicable
2) Two-year
3) Exclusively graduate/professional

168
4) Four-year
VoterRegistration: Are you currently registered to vote at your present address?
1) Yes, registered to vote
2) No, not registered
Year: What year do you expect to graduate?
1) 2016
2) 2017
3) 2018
4) 2019
5) 2020
6) 2021
7) 2022
8) Faculty
9) Staff
10) Other
11) 2023
12) 2024
13) 2025
14) 2026
15) 2027
University

169
Appendix C: Example Diversity Statement Writing Guidelines
This appendix is a verbatim reproduction of the diversity statement writing guidelines
published by UC Davis (n.d.-a) and referenced by UCLA (n.d.) and UC San Diego (n.d.-a).
Guidelines for Applicants Writing Statement
The Contributions to Diversity Statement should describe your past efforts, as well as future
plans to advance diversity, equity and inclusion. It should also demonstrate an understanding of
the barriers facing women and underrepresented minorities and of the UC Davis mission to meet
the educational needs of our diverse student population.
Some faculty candidates may not have substantial past activities. If such cases, we recommend
focusing on future plans in your statement. However, please note that a demonstrated record of
past effort is given greater weight than articulating awareness of barriers or stating future plans.
A more developed and substantial plan is expected for senior candidates.
A) Understanding of Barriers
Describe your understanding of the barriers that exist for historically under-represented groups in
higher education and/or your field. This may be evidenced by personal experience and
educational background. For purposes of evaluating contributions to diversity, under-represented
groups (URGs) includes under-represented ethnic or racial minorities (URM), women, LGBTQ,
first-generation college, people with disabilities, and people from underprivileged backgrounds.
B) Past Activities
For all past activities, please be specific about the context, your role, scope or level of effort, and
the impact. Below are examples of activities that qualify as contributions to diversity and equity.
These are illustrative and by no means exhaustive.

170
Mentoring/Tutoring: This includes leading or participating in mentoring, advising, or tutoring
programs for underrepresented groups, including faculty, postdocs, students, or the broader
community.
Educational Outreach: This includes sustained outreach efforts aimed at underrepresented
students; attendance at a conference aimed at recruiting, supporting or advancing URGs;
participation in panels or talks as a speaker on related issues.
Committee Service: This includes serving on committee or board that focuses on diversity,
equity, inclusion and/or climate.
Research Activities: This includes research (articles, editorials, etc.) that contributes to
understanding the barriers facing URGs in higher education or that otherwise contributes to
diversity and equal opportunity, including artistic expression and cultural production that reflects
culturally diverse communities or voices under-represented in the arts and humanities.
Other (e.g. recruitment/retention/teaching/): These include efforts to diversify your research
group or lab; other efforts to diversify your department or field; development or use of
pedagogies that address different learning styles and/or learning disabilities; development of a
course on EDI issues.
C) Future Plans
Describe how you plan to contribute to diversity at UC Davis, including activities you would
pursue and how they would fit into your research area, department, campus, or national context.
Be as specific as possible, but realistic about your level of effort and time commitment.

171
Appendix D: Sample Contributions to Diversity Statements, Biology
This appendix is a verbatim reproduction of a sample diversity statement written by a
biology candidate published by UC San Diego (n.d.-a, n.d.-b).
Statement of Personal Contributions to Diversity
My first experience teaching a classroom of students whose backgrounds were very
different from mine came when I was twenty-one. I wrote a grant proposal for funding to live in
a small town in El Salvador to teach science, math, and English to the teachers in that
community. The grant made it possible to work on my own for a year with the group of sixteento twenty-three-year-old teachers. All of them were farmers or homemakers when they weren’t
teaching; many of them had been guerrilla fighters in the recently ended civil war. I taught
classes nightly in one of the classrooms by the light of a Coleman lantern. We covered mostly
pre-algebra and basic physics, as well as English for those who were interested. In the
afternoons, I taught chemistry to some of the clinic workers. We had no textbooks or supplies, so
we worked with what came to hand – I vividly remember illustrating the Pauli exclusion
principle with a pair of flip-flops. I got very good at the imperfect subjunctive in Spanish (“If this
were a four, the answer would be...”). I also learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t
work when you’re trying to bridge cultural, technological, and educational gaps to communicate
ideas in science and math. The most important lesson I learned was the importance of
demonstrating respect for my students. Many of them felt intimidated by the material, and there
were cultural and language barriers as well. Listening carefully was vital, both to what was said
and what was left unsaid. I learned to ask questions rather than make even seemingly obvious
assumptions because my assumptions were often wrong. Like many nontraditional students at
UCSD, my students in El Salvador were parttime students and full-time adults, with life

172
responsibilities like childcare and working to support themselves. I learned to teach in a way that
accommodated the competing demands on their time and energy. I also learned the importance of
getting students to “own” the material; without a genuine feeling of investment and competence,
they lacked the confidence to participate or ask questions. This was particularly evident with the
women in the math class. They would mumble or giggle when I asked them questions and refuse
to come up to the blackboard. I knew their reticence was keeping them from engaging with the
material and therefore from learning. I tried various approaches to build their confidence, but
nothing worked well. What finally broke the barrier was, surprisingly, simple repetition. We
spent a few evenings calculating square roots by hand, with the more confident students working
problem after problem on the board. At each step I asked the students to say what they should do
next. We went over the steps so many times that even the women hiding at the back of the
classroom learned the method by heart. Only then, when they were sure they were correct, did
they feel confident enough that they tentatively began to volunteer answers and comments. At
that point, I was able to get the first woman to come to the board to work a problem on her own,
and I had her friends coach her from the back of the room. When she succeeded, the others were
willing to try, and by the end of that lesson everyone was laughing and challenging each other to
do better. That single episode changed the whole dynamic of the class. After that, everyone was
much more willing to offer answers and ideas because they felt that the material in the classroom
was something they could master and even have fun with. The women discovered that math was
something they could do and that this class was a place they belonged intellectually as well as
socially. As a result, they engaged with the subject matter, asked questions when they were
confused, and learned much more rapidly. I learned that helping students completely master a
small skill can give them the confidence to tackle the rest of the material. I have since applied

173
that lesson by using peer teaching in discussion sections: I give each student a small topic to
study and then teach the class, which confers a sense of ownership and mastery. It also helps
build a classroom in which students support each other because they know they too will be
presenting soon. Teaching in Spanish gave me another window into the experience of many of
my future students: negotiating a language barrier. My Spanish rapidly improved beyond the
conversational level I arrived with, but it was sometimes frustrating to be unable to express
subtler and more complicated ideas. Teaching in another country taught me humility and respect
for students from other backgrounds. It taught me to be patient with people who struggle to
express their thoughts, whether because of disabilities, unfamiliarity with the language, or simple
shyness. There are often interesting ideas inside those minds if I can be understanding and
creative enough to help them emerge. This time in El Salvador was my first substantive teaching
experience. Since then, I have added other techniques to my repertoire that have been shown to
help engage students with varied learning styles, different levels of preparedness, and a mix of
backgrounds. These techniques include small-group work, peer instruction, a mix of assessment
methods (writing, speaking, varied formats of exam questions, etc.), encouraging metacognition
through formative assessments, hands-on exercises, and soliciting student questions via
nonthreatening means such as having them write down one confusing point at the end of each
lecture. Peer teaching activities are a particularly good way of using the diversity of the
classroom as an asset, since students can learn from one anothers’ different perspectives and
understanding of the material. Active learning methods such as these help reach and engage
students of all abilities and experiences. Other techniques that I use for creating an inclusive
classroom include maintaining and communicating high standards for all students (which helps
defuse stereotype threat), making the requirements for success very explicit by sharing rubrics

174
and learning goals with students (which particularly helps first-generation students), and using a
variety of analogies that connect with students’ experiences. I also bring in examples of women
and underrepresented minority scientists wherever possible. I particularly like to tell the story of
Christiane NüssleinVolhard, who discovered many of the genes involved in fruit fly
development. The European Molecular Biology Laboratory refused to give her a job until she
applied jointly with Eric Wieschaus because they did not believe she could run a laboratory on
her own. She, Wieschaus, and Edward Lewis later won the Nobel Prize. Beyond my own
classrooms, I have worked actively to promote underrepresented minority and first-generation
students in STEM fields. For several years, I co-led a group of UCSD staff and faculty that reads
the education research literature and discusses how innovative teaching and institutional support
can help serve those populations. I am also involved in an ongoing workshop teaching UCSD
TAs to create an inclusive classroom. I am an IRACDA postdoctoral fellow. IRACDA is an NIH
training program intended to promote diversity and teaching skills in future biology faculty. At
UCSD, IRACDA combines traditional postdoctoral research experience with the development of
teaching skills through mentored assignments at our partner minority serving institutions (SDSU
and San Diego City College). Through the IRACDA program, I have been trained in teaching a
diverse classroom, and teaching at SDSU and City College for five semesters has given me more
experience. I have contributed to professional development training for underrepresented
students at UCSD and SDSU via the Minority Access to Research Careers (MARC) and
preMARC programs. My future plans for promoting diversity and inclusion in the context of a
Teaching Professor position include:
Research:
• Publishing the results of the “Creating an Inclusive Classroom” TA training workshops.

175
• Studying and publishing the effects of study group interventions in BILD 3 (see Research
Statement).
Teaching:
• Employing the teaching methods described above to ensure equity and inclusion in my
classrooms.
Service:
• Continuing my involvement with organizations that promote diversity in STEM fields:
Association for Women in Science (AWIS), IRACDA, and the UCSD MARC program).
• Continuing to foster relationships between UCSD and local minority serving institutions
such as City College.
• Engaging in community outreach by teaching Student Tech K-12 workshops.
• Helping recruit underrepresented minority students for UCSD graduate programs by
contributing to the SACNAS conference.
I have taught many subjects in biology, to adults and teenagers, to single mothers and Ivy
League first-year students, in small seminars and large classrooms. Still, my approach to
teaching is grounded in the perspective I gained during my first year as a teacher in El Salvador
and the lessons I learned there: Make the subject fun. Show your students you care about their
learning. Be creative and try different techniques until you reach the students who don’t sit at the
front of the class. Understand that your experience is different from that of your students. Be
explicit about the criteria for success. Show respect and work hard, and expect respect and hard
work in return.
Above all, share your enthusiasm for your subject and for learning. That message crosses
all boundaries.

176
Appendix E: Sample Contributions to Diversity Statements, Physical Sciences
This appendix is a verbatim reproduction of a sample diversity statement written by a
physical sciences candidate published by UC San Diego (n.d.-a, n.d.-c). Portions redacted below
were done so by the publisher.
Statement of Contributions to Diversity
As a Latino immigrant who lived in X, Y, and the United States, I am sensitive to the challenges
that ethnic minorities face in academia. Thus, over the last years I have become determined to act
towards creating an environment that is more inviting towards underrepresented minorities,
women, and socioeconomically underprivileged students which I will expand as a Professor.
As a graduate in X, I laid the groundwork for a scholarship program to bring Latino physics
students to X. The program’s first supported student has recently obtained his Master’s degree
from the University of N. Others are applying.
As a postdoc at NN, I am closely working with Professor Z on these fronts. Together with Prof.
Z, the university’s Division of Equity and Inclusion, and the Chicana Latino Student
Development Office, we have created a counseling program called “[redacted]”. This program
organizes a support structure for Latino undergraduate students to help them apprehend the entire
academic process by talking directly to Latino graduate students, postdocs and perhaps
ultimately professors (we are currently seeking their participation). We all hold office hours
where students discuss their personal and academic struggles. The issues they bring up range
from their undocumented status, gang family members, limited finances, sexual orientation, to
questions about physics and math. Secondly, sparked by recent political events, I collaborate
with Professor Z in lobbying for protection of undocumented students at the university.
As a faculty member at UC San Diego, I would propose the following activities in pursuit of a
more diverse academic body:
• As a research mentor, I would embrace and welcome Latino, African American, gay, and
women students and postdocs into my group.
• I would create support programs for Latino undergraduate students in STEM, inviting
fellow Latino faculty, postdocs, and graduate students to offer guidance and support to
upcoming undergraduate students. Furthermore, together with women and other minority
groups represented in the Physics faculty, I would push to create a widespread support
structure for STEM students.
• Being close to the border, at UCSD I would create outreach programs at Community
Colleges and High Schools with high Latino representation, arranging visits from within
the Physics Department (myself and other Latino members) to these locations, and
discuss their needs, struggles and propose plans for improvements and solutions.
• I would reach out to the Undocumented Student Services Center at UCSD and offer
guidance, counseling and support to the students.

177
• I would continue to help Professor Z draft UC-wide legislation to protect undocumented
students from possible federal action – an issue critical at the UCSD campus due to its
proximity to the border.
In conclusion, I believe academia must strive to expand diversity with a more inclusive
approach – welcoming and embracing different socioeconomic, ethnic, gender groups, etc. –
and create a broader pool of thought processes and worldviews. UC San Diego’s commitment
to this idea resonates with my desire and responsibility to contribute as a Latino scientist,
educator, and activist.
.

178
Appendix F: Sample Contributions to Diversity Statements, Engineering Example
This appendix is a verbatim reproduction of a sample diversity statement written by an
engineering candidate published by UC San Diego (n.d.-a, n.d.-d). Portions redacted below were
done so by the publisher.
I am well aware that being a scientist or researcher does not mean just being successful in
research. At the same time one should be excellent in his/her interactions with the community
and the students, in his/her role to lead the academic society and in responsibilities to
transform the community. To this end, I have been engaged in several volunteer activities,
such as, tutoring in high schools to attract especially female students’ attention to science and
math, guiding and encouraging female students from my undergraduate school, [redacted], to
apply to graduate school, and mentoring younger female scientists through the [redacted]
Women in Engineering network. At University [redacted], I mentor a female, minority
undergraduate student for her undergraduate research project. I train her on building and
characterizing on [redacted] for studying [redacted]. Next year, she will pursue her own research
project on designing and developing [redacted], which will possibly lead to a journal publication.
Hopefully, her research experience will carry her to one of the top graduate schools in US.
I aim to establish a role model as a women scientist and engineer for young generations
(starting from high school level up to graduate school) in the US and in the Middle East. Being
from a country close to the Middle East region, knowing the culture and people’s perspective on
higher education for women increases my enthusiasm in achieving my goal of raising
awareness of the contribution of women to the sciences and society. However, my goal of
being a role model for younger generations is not an easy task, very difficult to achieve through
only personal efforts based on volunteer activities. A very effective way of increasing public
awareness towards education of women in science and engineering is to use internet and news
media to present exceptional women scientists to a wider public and increase their visibility. I
plan on continuing to utilize the news media and internet more effectively in my efforts to inform
the public on the impacts of women in higher education, scientific research, technology and
science in addition to my volunteer activities.
I would like to build a web site or a portal for young female undergraduate students, which will
allow them interact with other more senior scientists (mostly postdocs and faculty) to discuss
their future plans on research, their current research projects or seek advice for the difficulties
they have in their undergraduate research projects. The students will also be assigned to a
volunteer mentor depending on their background and interests, who will give them the support to
choose a career in science, engineering or technology. I will try to advertise this website on
popular media outlets, science blogs and popular science journals. In addition to that, I believe
visiting local high schools and presenting my research to high school students is another great
way of communicating with younger generations and being a role model for the female students.
I still cannot forget the questions that a young high school student asked me after my
presentation on [redacted]. There is nothing more important than sparking a light in young bright
minds. [redacted] Fig: Presentation at high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Lucas, Mark Francis (author)

Core Title Beyond the heckler’s veto: analysis of undergraduate students who consider violence to suppress free speech

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2025-05

Publication Date 04/14/2025

Defense Date 03/26/2025

Publisher University of Southern California (original), Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic freedom,bias response teams,cancel culture,Chicago Statement,First Amendment,free expression,free speech,heckler’s veto,institutional neutrality,Kalven Report,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Advisor Datta, Monique Claire (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Pritchard, Marcus (committee member)

Creator Email mflucas@usc.edu,mark.lucas.biz@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399KAIO

Identifier etd-LucasMarkF-13928.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LucasMarkF-13928

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Lucas, Mark Francis

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20250414-usctheses-batch-1252 (batch), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection), University of Southern California (contributing entity)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The decline of free speech and rise of cancel culture on American university campuses is detrimental to student learning. Results of a 2023 study by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) showed that 27% of undergraduate students were willing to consider violence to suppress speech with which they disagreed. That percentage has been consistently increasing since 2020. This current study leverages the raw data from the 2023 FIRE study of responses from 55,102 undergraduates in the United States. It utilizes a theoretical framework based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to analyze the impact of a student’s classmates, faculty, and college administrators on their willingness to consider violence against free speech. Results show that students are significantly less likely to consider violence than the overall sample population when their university administrators are extremely clear about their protection of campus free speech. Moreover, undergraduates who talk to their friends about controversial issues are significantly less likely to consider violence than the overall sample, while those that have similar conversations with faculty are significantly more likely to do so. To address these issues and improve campus free speech culture, this study recommends that universities fully adopt the Chicago Statement and Kalven Principles, that they begin to teach students that it is admirable to disagree civilly, and that they eliminate the use of mandatory diversity statements in faculty hiring decisions. Suggested future research on this topic can refine understanding of what leads students to consider violence in response to speech.