Faculty from two Pennsylvania universities participated in a survey on the state of free speech and self-censorship.
The results reveal growing concerns about academic freedom.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, surveyed over 6,000 faculty members at 55 major colleges and universities across the country. Their new report, Silence in the Classroom: The FIRE Faculty Survey Report, found campus climates where respondents admitted to hiding their political views to avoid censure.
Some 23% said their own departments are “somewhat” or “very” hostile toward people with their political beliefs and expressed concerns about being fired over a misunderstanding about something they say or do.
Only 20% say a conservative would fit in well in their department, and nearly half, at 47%, of conservative faculty reported feeling unable to voice their opinions, compared to only 19% of liberal faculty.
A key finding revealed that 35% recently toned down their writing for fear of controversy, compared to just 9% who said the same during the McCarthy era.
“The McCarthy era is considered a low point in the history of American academic freedom with witchhunts, loyalty tests, and blacklisting in universities across the country,” said FIRE’s Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt via email statement to The Center Square.
“That today’s scholars feel less free to speak their minds than in the 1950s is a blistering indictment of the current state of academic freedom and discourse,” he added.
Half of those surveyed oppose mandatory DEI pledges, including 85% of conservative, and 35% of liberal faculty.
“It should surprise no one that conservative faculty are opposed to mandatory DEI pledges, but even a substantial bloc of liberal faculty are opposed to the practice as well,” said Honeycutt. “Given how divisive they are, it’s likely these pledges persist in part due to self-censorship among faculty, who fear expressing opposition openly.”
Additionally, 55% of conservative faculty said they at least occasionally hid their political views to keep their jobs, compared to only 17% of liberal faculty.
Conservative faculty is the minority, said Honeycutt.
“If they’re not expressing their views, then students are even less exposed to conservative perspectives than one might expect based on the numbers,” he said.
According to the report, the political ideology of faculty members at Pennsylvania State University and the University of Pennsylvania are as follows:
Penn State: 57% Liberal; 16% Moderate; 21% Conservative; 7% Other.
UPenn: 60% Liberal; 21% Moderate; 13% Conservative; 7% Other.
Respondents at Penn State and Penn, 38% and 32% respectively, reported recently toning down something they wrote.
Percentages varied slightly on how frequently political beliefs were hidden to safeguard jobs.
At Penn State, 52%, reported never toning down their writing, followed by 22% who said “Rarely,” 9% “Occasionally,” 6% “Fairly Often,” and 11% “Very Often.”
Similarly, at Penn, 59% said “Never,” 18% “Rarely,” 10% “Occasionally,” 6% “Fairly Often,” and 8% “Very Often.”
Nationally, the top three most difficult issues to discuss on campuses were: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (70%), racial inequality (51%) and transgender rights (49%).
At both Pennsylvania schools, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was also the most difficult topic: 66% at Penn State and 78% at UPenn identified it as such. They differed, however, on the second and third most challenging topics.
At Penn State, the presidential election (48%) and transgender rights (46%) ranked next, while at UPenn, racial inequality (55%) and affirmative action (49%) were cited.
FIRE says that for many college and university faculty — especially those in the ideological minority, or without tenure — their findings indicate concerns over self-censorship in academia are not overblown.
“Academic freedom may technically exist, but many faculty appear to lack faith that it will be there to protect them — their work, their reputations, or their jobs — in times of need,” the group said. “For many, the risks today are just too high.”
The foundation argues the situation is unsustainable if higher education aims to uphold its truth seeking and knowledge-producing mission. Achieving this will require “courageous faculty” who are unafraid to tackle controversial topics, who will support colleagues targeted for their speech or academic endeavors, and consistent support from institutional administrations.
“If increasing numbers of colleges and universities also pursue these values, it is likely that future surveys of faculty concerning free expression and academic freedom will report substantially different findings,” the report concludes.
