December 12, 2024 - 12:30pm
Some 70% of faculty at US universities say they have difficulty talking openly about the Israel-Palestine conflict on campus, according to a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
“Silence in the Classroom” surveyed more than 6,000 academics on freedom of expression on college campuses. It concluded that while the feeling was not universal, a significant number of faculty members “report not being able to have an open and honest conversation on campus about important issues of the day”.
More than a third (35%) said they recently toned down their writing for fear of controversy, compared to 9% who said the same during the McCarthy era. Some 23% of faculty worry about losing their jobs because of a misunderstanding over something they say or do, while 27% feel unable to speak freely for fear of how students, administrators, or other faculty might respond.
| Which contentious subjects do US university staff report finding it difficult to speak openly about? |
 |
The data show that feelings of self-censorship and fears over voicing opinions are split along political lines, with conservative-leaning faculty more likely to say they are affected. For example, only 17% of liberal staff said they “at least occasionally hide their political views in order to keep their jobs”, compared to 55% of conservatives.
FIRE’s report comes after a tumultuous year on university campuses across America in the wake of renewed conflict in the Middle East. In the spring, significant pro-Palestine encampments were set up at Columbia University and UCLA, among other universities. The protests were marred by violence, with over 300 protestors arrested at Columbia and over 250 arrested in LA.
Throughout the year, there have been many examples of antisemitic or threatening behaviour towards Jewish students and faculty. This was preceded by a Congressional hearing in late 2023 when the heads of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania all refused to say whether calls for the genocide of Jews constituted harassment according to university guidelines. Of the three, only MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, is still in her post.
While the report details that 70% of faculty find it difficult to talk honestly about the war in the Middle East, there are other topics which academics avoid. Many also say they have difficulty talking openly about racial inequality (51%), transgender rights (49%), affirmative action (47%), and the presidential election (41%).
Reports of a chilling effect and campus censorship are not new. In January, a previous FIRE study found that 85% of American universities have policies in place that restrict speech. In another study, which the report quotes, upwards of 70% of students reported thinking that professors who say something offensive should be reported.
The new figures from FIRE also show that many academics disagree with some institutional policies which have become the norm. Half (50%) of the faculty surveyed said “it is rarely or never justified to require faculty job candidates to submit statements pledging commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion”. Two-thirds (66%) said colleges and universities should not take positions on political and social issues.
In the wake of campus protests, many universities have committed to institutional neutrality, although there is still the dilemma of how to protect free speech while maintaining order. The report concludes that “concerns over self-censorship in academia are not overblown”. It continues: “A climate of this type is not sustainable for higher education, at least not if higher education desires to uphold its truthseeking and knowledge-producing mission.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHigher ed continues to beclown itself.
That’s an insult to many fine clowns.
‘Antisemitism’ is the new McCarthyism
It seems to me that a solid dose of good old McCarthyism might have fixed the situation.
100%.
Self-censership is one of the hallmarks of communist China which I lived through my childhood and youth. It destroys basic trust among family members, friends and communities. To say it feels déjà vu is an understatement. I wish it was a nightmare and we would wake up from it.
Good comment. If one wants to understand what a totalitarian society is like, ask someone who has lived in one. This is a healthy reminder for all of us in the US and Europe who take free speech as a given. It isn’t. It has to be protected so people can speak freely. So long as free speech is sacred, there will be the possibility to reject bad ideas and embrace good ones. I would hate to live in China today or at any point since Mao. I would imagine the silence is deafening.
At least people are recognizing the problem and are discussing it. The first and most difficult step in fixing any problem is acknowledging that there is one. Academia has been in denial about this for far too long.
Suppression of free speech in the UK is now enforced by the Police and the courts. People who have ‘committed’ minor ‘crimes’ by which others claim to have been offended have been imprisoned; while countless thousands who’ve publicly celebrated the 07 October massacre in Israel and loudly demanded the return of the gas chambers to eradicate Jews from their own country have not been dealt with by the authorities.
The constant, daily propaganda from the BBC, reinforced in every institution, corporate entity and public service, bullies and cows the population into silent compliance and induces blanket self-censorship. Most people simply do not appreciate the enormous extent to which this evil has pervaded every aspect of our lives, now accelerated by the application of AI to snoop on every aspect of our electronic communications. Indeed, it has now become an accepted way of life and only a few, very few, brave media souls stand up and are counted. Even then, some of them have been the subject of Police action. Further legislation (such as a proposed law to deal with so-called ‘Islamophobia’ – what about Christophobia? or Caucasiophobia? or Androphobia?) is currently being assembled by Sir Keir Starmer’s Labou government).
We are taught to hate our heritage, culture and identity – and to detach ourselves from our history. The law of the land has been inverted by human rights lawyers (like Starmer) to serve the interests of minorities and to suppress the majority.
Welcome to our Brave New World!
The hectoring lecturing, the refusal to countenance different opinions, the screaming against tradition and traditional views, the re-framing of history, even re-writing, the insistence on unquestioning acceptance of the new paradigm no matter how logically insane and the cancellation and destruction of those who refuse indeed bear all the hallmarks of Maoism.
I remember learning about the horrors of the Cultural Revolution when I was young and being so thankful that it could never happen here but unless there is a meaningful and effective pushback against this very soon we will go beyond the point of no return. A nightmare indeed. How traumatic it must be for you.
I wonder if Net Zero will prove to be our, hopefully much less catastrophic, version of China’s Great Leap Forward?
I reckon the results (adapted to reflect some different issues) would be very similar in UK.
By the way, the fear of speaking openly is noticeable not only in universities, but also, alas, here.
I have not seen any texts in which wokism is called what it really is – a successfully mutated form of fascism.
I’m not in the least bit scared of describing wokists as fascist scum. That is exactly what they are.
Why fascism?
Is is form of Neo-Marxisim.
Marxism is fascism without the honesty.
Editors removed my comment. The question is why? Is it illegal to compare wokeism with fascism?
It’s back now (assuming the comment above is the one you posted.) I assume the problem is with the word f@scism — in which case, was your second comment delayed too?
That’s the problem with trying to keep comment boards clean — use a robot to block offensive words and you block discussion of offensive subjects. The alternative is descending into the muck of offensive minds. It’s a perplex.
Thank you! Although as a programmer, I would suggest a more accurate algorithm that tracks the history of the commenter.
More than a third (35%) said they recently toned down their writing for fear of controversy, compared to 9% who said the same during the McCarthy era.
Well, compared to the McCarthy era, that’s very bad, but compared to the Cultural Revolution, that’s very good! It’s all about your perspective, really.
That’s it, comrade! Report tomorrow for work in the bean fields! Perhaps honest labor will adjust your attitude!
Sure thing!
Oh, a lima bean that looks like the Leader! I’ll put it with the others.
McCarthy was right to persecute communists. Communists are fascists and that is exactly how you should treat fascists.
Of course the Israel v Palestine gets the highest count. The rest are already accepted. Just wait a while till the students have caved in to this as they have the others. Career opportunities.
Academics were never known for their courage, they care about their career progression, job tenure and security, research funding, etc. Rocking the boat is not in their nature. Besides what is there for them to gain by opining on a never ending tribal religious territorial conflict?
If you say anything wrong about the actions or the behavior of a certain nation, you are called names…an antisemite. It’s the equivalent of questioning the official narrative on Ukraine, where you get labeled a “Putin supporter”. The truth is that you know who controls things by who you are able to criticize.
The fact is there is a genocide going on in Palestine. That’s a fact, Jack. Human beings, women and children are being starved and killed, and pushed out of their land, because they are inconvenient, and our Western mainstream media helps hide the truth… Let that sink in.
Genocide is when you deliberately exterminate a race or ethnic group, not when you fight terrorists who are using their own people as human shields.
Right, all 35,000 of them were being used as “human shields”…You are being lied to Richard.
Did you know that Hamas’ biggest funder before October 7th was Netanyahu’s government? They knew the October 7th thing was coming, and allowed it to do the cleansing they are doing. He announced and held up his “Greater Israel” map project Sep 23rd, 2 weeks before it happened where the Palestinians are pushed out of the West Bank, and that is what he has been doing.
The Hebrew newspapers such as the Jerusalem Post cover all this stuff way better than you have been told in your UK brainwash news that you trust. They are not the innocent victims of everyone that they portray themselves as. Look it up. Go to the Jerusalem post and do some searches.
Steve White, none of what you write is remotely true. You are either lying or are happy to be lied to if it fits with your wish to demonize Israel.
The number of civilian deaths in Gaza was just shown to be inflated:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/12/14/number-civilians-killed-gaza-inflated-to-vilify-israel/?ICID=continue_without_subscribing_reg_first
The Netanyahu Gov’t didn’t fund Hamas, but did allow Qatar to transfer millions every month.It was also allowing increasing numbers of Gazans to work in Israel. It was hoping that improving the lives of the Gazans would reduce their extremism. In retrospect it was naive but not evil.
You understand nothing about Israel if you think that the leadership knew October 7th was coming, and that this wouldn’t have leaked to the public.
The rest of what you write is so far off that it can’t even be meaningfully addressed. And BTW, I read the J’lem post and am subscribed to Haaretz.
Thanks for that, although I don’t know why we bother with this individual since he is clearly unwilling or unable to argue in good faith.
You said that Israel was committing genocide. I provided you with a definition of genocide, and expressed my doubt that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet this definition. Debating in good faith entails either showing how Israel’s actions do meet this definition, or suggesting an alternative definition. Instead, your response to me is deflection, word salad, and Gish Gallop.
Gaza’s population is 1.065m according to the World Population Review, to which I link below. If Israel was committing genocide – viz. the deliberate eradication of Gaza’s population – it would have killed considerably more than 35,000 Gazans even assuming your figures correct, which as Danny Kaye below points out they almost certainly aren’t.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/palestine/gaza