Higher education has long been in the spotlight of public opinion due to excessive tuition fees, runaway student loans, and questionable outcomes. However, recent public criticism is due to the suppression of intellectual thought and debate.
A new report by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which assesses free speech on college campuses, ranks Harvard University, long considered a beacon of higher education, last among 248 colleges and universities. Let's think about this. I was interested in how FIRE measures free speech, where Nevada's public universities rank in its rankings, and why. I started learning about the metrics I use to judge the situation.
FIRE was founded in 1999 as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to promote free speech on campus. In 2022, the organization changed its name to the Individual Rights and Expression Foundation to align with its broader approach to supporting free speech. To rank institutions, FIRE and online research and data analysis firm College Pulse survey students across the country to quantify their perceptions of the free speech climate on campus. The questions are designed to elicit opinions about institutional tolerance of liberal and conservative speakers and their ability to openly discuss controversial issues such as abortion rights and gun ownership.
Other metrics include campus metrics such as invited speakers being disinvited for reasons related to their speech or student group sanctions. Administrative policy documents that may infringe on freedom of speech are also subject to evaluation. These spotlight ratings assign each university a “red,” “yellow,” or “green” light designation. A red light indicates that the written policy “clearly and materially restricts free speech,” and a yellow light indicates that the policy may impact protected expression due to ambiguous language. It means that there is a gender. Green-lit institutions were found to have no policies restricting free speech.
The overall ranking of institutions is based on a composite score of 13 factors, six of which assess student perceptions and seven of which assess administrator, faculty, and student behavior regarding freedom of expression. Masu. Student perceptions are determined from surveys that ask students to report their comfort level with expressing opinions on controversial topics in various campus settings such as classrooms and cafeterias.
For example, more than 400 students at UNLV and UNR were asked how comfortable they felt expressing their opinions on controversial political topics during class discussions. Less than half of respondents on both campuses felt comfortable voicing their opinions, and one in five reported feeling “very uncomfortable.”
In the 2024 report, UNLV and UNR ranked 94th and 87th, respectively, out of 248 universities for “student free speech and open inquiry.” According to FIRE's rating range, which ranges from exceptional to terrible, each campus received an “average” rating.
In 2006, the UNR administration was accused of maintaining an unconstitutional policy that restricted speech to four “small and remote” areas on campus, according to a historical FIRE report. At the time, FIRE was challenging free speech zones at universities across the country. In a letter to then-interim President Joe Crowley, FIRE argued that the university had designated limited areas on campus as “public forum areas,” which unconstitutionally restricted speech. did. The letter contained a passionate condemnation of excessive freedom of speech violations. In his written response, President Crowley calmly defended university officials against accusations of deliberate efforts to undermine free speech. But he also acknowledged that the policies in question do indeed deserve modification.
At first glance, the 2006 incident at UNR, the accusations, and the university's response seemed like a lot of fuss over nothing. But when you consider the big picture, this incident was a big fuss about something very important.
Control over freedom can creep into society almost imperceptibly, especially when disguised as good intentions. Consider the illogical and excessive regulations introduced by government authorities during the recent pandemic. Schools were closed in some cities, but remained open in others, even though children were not at risk. It was unthinkable for parks and beaches to be closed in the name of public health, even though outdoor open spaces are one of the safest places to avoid contracting the virus. Professional athletes who have not been vaccinated were not allowed to play on their home courts but were allowed to play in away games.
The list goes on. Remember, mask mandates have evolved to the point where people wear masks when driving alone in a car or walking outdoors with no one within 50 yards. Remnants of the behavioral changes that began almost four years ago are still evident. Most people complied, even though they simultaneously knew that many extreme restrictions defied logic. Some who questioned the mandate were silenced.
Organizations like FIRE, which detect early signs of free speech violations and get behind institutions, serve as important guardrails to prevent a slide into tyranny. As the pandemic has shown us, one slip can easily turn another into a dangerous slippery slope.
Free speech must be confidently restored on university campuses, the very places where intellectual thought and debate should be cultivated at the highest level. Perhaps next year's report will show that most students at UNR and UNLV feel comfortable expressing their personal opinions on controversial topics in the classroom. This will be a good start.
In the meantime, guardrails should remain in place.
Michael Raponi is a contributing columnist for the Nevada Independent. Contact details are as follows: [email protected]
