Table of Contents
Article Highlights Partisanship of Campus Speech Codes
Former FIRE president David French has an article on speech codes on National Review Online today. He explains the “mental agility” of the 1960s free speech activists who have become the architects of today’s campus speech codes. David writes:
Those who formerly glorified dissent clamp down on campus with a mind-numbing level of intellectual conformity. Scientific inquiry is welcome, unless it results in tough questions about possible innate gender differences. Open debate is the hallmark of the academy, unless of course that debate intrudes into areas where policy should be settled and morality decided (like when dealing with race, class, gender, war, peace, and sexuality).
FIRE exists to counteract this suppression of dissent and to “defend and sustain individual rights on America’s increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities.” From College Republicans holding affirmative action bake sales to PETA groups tabling the campus quad, we will protect everyone’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and due process rights no matter where they land on the political spectrum.
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from FIRE.
How McCarthy scared America silent
A paranoid senator, a terrified nation, and the birth of modern political censorship. This is the chilling story of how McCarthyism came to haunt America.
The Privacy Protection Act protects watchdogs. What if it’s ignored?
When the government treats “find the leak” as a license to raid reporters, the law meant to protect watchdogs starts looking more like a speed bump than a guardrail.
Lawmakers see different threats to campus speech — but the same stakes
A recent congressional hearing revealed that despite real disagreement, Democrats and Republicans agree that campus free speech is essential to higher education — and America’s future.
Senate’s rush to regulate AI chatbots is bad for everybody
Congress can regulate AI without gutting free speech but the GUARD Act risks censorship, compelled speech, and mandatory ID checks.