Table of Contents
âGuidelines for Classroom Discussionâ Still Stifle Free Speech at the University of South Carolina
Five years ago FIREcriticized the University of South Carolina for the presence of a document titled âGuidelines for Classroom Discussionâ in the syllabus of âWomenâs Studies 797: Seminar in Womenâs Studies,â a required class for a certificate of graduate study in Womenâs Studies. The âGuidelinesâ require that students:
1. Acknowledge that racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, and other institutionalized forms of oppression exist.2. Acknowledge that one mechanism of institutionalized racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, etc., is that we are all systematically taught misinformation about our own group and about members of other groups. This is true for members of privileged and oppressed groups.3 Agree not to blame ourselves or others for the misinformation we have learned, but to accept responsibility for not repeating misinformation after we have learned otherwise.4. Assume that people-both the people we study and the members of the class-always do the best they can.°ÚâŠ]7 Agree to combat actively the myths and stereotypes about our own groups and other groups so that we can break down the walls which prohibit group cooperation and group gain.°ÚâŠ]
We wrote in our letter:
These âGuidelinesâ compel students to express viewpoints they might not believe and to make fundamental assumptions with which they might not agree, under the stated, explicit, and coercive threat of being graded poorly for honest intellectual dissent. Such an ideological âloyalty oathâ should be anathema to any institution devoted to learning, because it replaces the process of intellectual discovery with the imposition of dogmatic political orthodoxy. Because this class is explicitly a ârequired seminar,â its ideological requirements violate not only the guidelines on academic freedom of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and USCâs own regulations, but also, indeed, the Constitution of the United States.
It is fine for a professor to hold the above views and even to argue for them in the classroom through teaching and assigned reading. But, as we wrote in our letter, â[I]t is categorically different to require students to hold certain arguments as unquestionable truths in order to participate in a class without penalty (let alone in a required class).â The University of South Carolina understands and expresses this idea in its statement of âFIRERights and Freedoms Within the Academic Communityâ which states:
As members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and independent search for truth.
[...]The freedom to learn depends upon appropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroom, on the campus and in the larger community.
Itâs safe to say that the âGuidelines for Classroom Discussionâ in Womenâs Studies 797 do not cultivate âappropriate opportunities and conditions in the classroomâ for the âfreedom to learnâ and certainly do not aid in any way the development of âthe capacity for critical judgmentâ or encourage âa sustained and independent search for truth.â
Five years later, the Guidelines are . This highlights the old adage that âthe price of liberty is eternal vigilance.â FIREcontinues to encourage the University of South Carolina to change its classroom policy for Womenâs Studies 797. Please, give your students the freedoms required by the Constitution and enshrined in your own policies.
Recent Articles
FIREâs award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.

FIREstatement on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton upholding age verification for adult content
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold Texas's age-verification law for sites featuring adult content, effectively reversing decades of Supreme Court precedent that protects the free speech rights of adults to access information without jumping over government age-verification hurdles.

Orchestrated silence: How one of Americaâs most elite music schools expelled a student for reporting harassment
Rebecca Bryant Novak earned her spot at one of the worldâs top music schools. But after reporting her advisor for harassment, she says the school turned on her. Now FIREis demanding answers.

FIREto court: AI speech is still speech â and the First Amendment still applies
Is AI-generated speech speech? In a new amicus brief, FIREsays yes â and warns that when it comes to free speech and emerging tech, early missteps can echo for decades.

Voters want AI political speech protected â and lawmakers should listen
New polling shows voters fear AI â but fear government censorship more. As lawmakers push new rules, are they protecting elections or silencing speech?