Colleges should compete on free speech
by Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor Jr.
In a June 20, 2023, commentary titled "Colleges Should Compete on Free Speech," published in RealClearPolitics, authors Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor Jr. argue that higher education institutions can distinguish themselves by prioritizing free speech and academic freedom.
Current Landscape
The article argues that the traditional hierarchy of elite universities—such as the Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech—could shift if colleges begin differentiating themselves based on their commitment to free speech and academic freedom. While students and parents often prioritize prestige, many top-ranked institutions perform poorly in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) free speech rankings and have faced controversies that tarnish their reputations.
The Free Speech Problem at Elite Institutions
The authors highlight Princeton and Stanford as case studies, noting that both schools have received negative attention for suppressing free speech. A Princetonians for Free Speech survey found that many Princeton students feel uncomfortable expressing controversial opinions, with a significant number believing it is acceptable to shout down speakers or even use violence in some cases. Similarly, at Stanford Law School, students disrupted a federal judge’s speech and later sought to intimidate the dean for apologizing. The deeper issue, the authors argue, is a culture where dissenting views are not just discouraged but actively punished.
Alternative Institutions and the Competitive Advantage of Free Speech
The authors point to schools like the University of Chicago, Purdue, the University of North Carolina, and Vanderbilt as institutions that have taken strong stances in favor of free speech. They argue that students, parents, faculty, and even employers would increasingly prefer schools where open discourse is protected over those with restrictive cultures.
Signs of Change and Future Implications
The article notes anecdotal signs of a backlash against elite schools that stifle free expression, such as federal judges refusing to hire clerks from Yale and Stanford Law. Alumni donation participation rates at Princeton are also reportedly declining. As demand for free speech-friendly colleges grows, resources such as FIRE’s rankings will become more influential, and universities embracing these principles will gain a competitive edge.
Conclusion
While elite universities may not feel immediate financial pressure to change due to their massive endowments, a long-term shift could erode their influence. The authors argue that embracing free speech is not about creating politically conservative institutions but rather restoring universities to their original purpose—advancing knowledge through open discourse and viewpoint diversity. Institutions that commit to this mission will be better positioned to thrive in the evolving higher education landscape.