��֭����

Executive summary

For the sixth year in a row, the FIRE(��֭����), a nonprofit organization committed to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, and College Pulse surveyed college undergraduates about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.^[1]

This year’s survey includes 68,510 student respondents from 257 colleges and universities. FIREwho were enrolled in four-year degree programs were surveyed via the College Pulse mobile app and web portal from Jan. 3 through June 5, 2025.

This year’s rankings feature a revised scoring system. Schools can now earn bonuses for endorsing the “Chicago Principles” and/or institutional neutrality; overall scores are no longer standardized; and schools now receive a letter grade for their speech climate. The full pre-registered methodology is available on the .

The College Free Speech Rankings are available online and are presented in an  that allows for easy comparison between institutions.

Key findings:

1. Claremont McKenna College is this year’s top-ranked school, its second time earning the honor. Purdue University, the University of Chicago, Michigan Technological University, and the University of Colorado at Boulder round out the top five.
2. Barnard College is this year’s lowest-ranked school. Columbia University,  Indiana University, the University of Washington, and Northeastern University round out the bottom five.
3. The average overall score (58.63) is a failing grade in a college course. Overall, 166 of the 257 schools surveyed got an F for their speech climate, while only 11 schools received a speech climate grade of C or higher.
4. Since 2020, CMC, Purdue, UChicago, Michigan Tech, CU Boulder, North Carolina State University, Florida State University, the University of Virginia, George Mason University, and Kansas State University have all consistently performed better than most of their peers.
5. Vanderbilt University, Dartmouth College, and Yale University all improved significantly this year, ranking 7, 35, and 58 respectively. Harvard University, which was ranked last the previous two years, also improved to rank 245.
6. Over half of students (53%) say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to “have an open and honest conversation about on campus.” On 21 of the campuses surveyed, at least 75% of students said this — including 90% of students at Barnard.
7. The percentage of students saying it is acceptable to shout down a speaker, block entry to a campus speech, or use violence to stop a campus speech all increased since last year and are at record highs.
8. For the first time ever, a majority of students oppose their school allowing any of the six controversial speakers they were asked about — three controversial conservative speakers and three controversial liberal ones.

Overview

In 2020, in collaboration with College Pulse and RealClearEducation, the FIRE(��֭����) launched a first-of-its-kind tool to help high school students and their parents identify which colleges promote and protect the free exchange of ideas: the College Free Speech Rankings. The initial rankings report and online tool sparked an outpouring of praise from students, parents, and alumni alike.

What began with 55 campuses in 2020 has now grown into a sweeping annual study of 257 schools, capturing the voices of almost 300,000 students — and almost 70,000 this year alone. Whether you’re a prospective student sizing up your options, a professor curious about classroom openness, or an administrator charting a path forward, the rankings illuminate what free expression truly looks like on campus — and how it differs from school to school. 

A second Trump administration is applying heightened pressure to institutions of higher learning, targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, protest rights, and the boundaries of acceptable campus discourse. New executive actions empower state-aligned trustees and university boards to intervene in academics and redirect federal funds from “ideologically hostile” schools. Meanwhile, 60 colleges and universities face Department of Education investigations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their handling of anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination on their campuses.

These actions, coupled with the well-documented and growing uncertainty among students and faculty about what can safely be said or taught, have deepened an already volatile climate for campus expression. Against this backdrop of political intervention and institutional upheaval, FIREreleases its 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, offering a data-driven look at where campus free speech is flourishing — and where it is failing.

As in previous years, the College Free Speech Rankings  offers a unique tool to compare schools’ rankings and explore other factors, such as cost and proximity to home.

This report proceeds by first briefly discussing trends in the data that have emerged over the past six years. It then turns to this year’s rankings, highlighting the top-performing schools and those who improved the most, while detailing why schools near the bottom performed poorly.^[2]

National trends: a chilling climate for campus speech

After six years of surveying almost 300,000 college undergraduates nationwide, a sobering picture has emerged: students are reluctant to speak their minds, especially on controversial political issues. Many report that they self-censor regularly, avoid certain topics entirely, and doubt their administrators would defend free expression if controversy struck.

The atmosphere isn’t just cautious — it’s hostile. FIREcontinue to show low tolerance for controversial speakers, and troublingly, more believe it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker, block access to events, or even resort to violence to silence campus speech than ever before. These attitudes have either held steady or worsened in the past year.

One of the most striking shifts this year? The percentage of students willing to allow controversial speakers on campus declined across the board — and the drop is even sharper for controversial liberal speakers than conservative ones.

Acceptance of disruptive, illiberal protest tactics also ticked upward. Record numbers now say it’s okay for students to shout down speakers, obstruct event entrances, or use violence.

Just like last year, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tops the list of taboo topics: 53% say it’s too sensitive for open discussion, a slight dip from 55% in 2024. Abortion and transgender rights remain high on the list of difficult conversations, and this year, concerns around the 2024 presidential election surged: 42% of students now say it’s hard to discuss — up from 31% the year before.

While the national data reveal a steady erosion of free expression at colleges and universities across the country, it’s on individual campuses where this crisis becomes most vivid. Some schools stand out as rare beacons of hope for open dialogue — but many others are mired in hostility, fear, and censorship. In the next section, we examine campus-level results to identify which institutions are protecting free speech and which are falling alarmingly short.

2026 College Free Speech Rankings

For the second time in six years, Claremont McKenna College is the top-ranked school for free speech, with an overall score of 79.86 and a speech climate grade of B-. Purdue University (76.24), the University of Chicago (76.13), Michigan Technological University (75.55), and the University of Colorado at Boulder (74.46) round out the top five, with each obtaining a speech climate grade of C. Last year’s top-ranked school, the University of Virginia (70.33, C-), ranks 21 this year.

At the other end of the spectrum, Barnard College ranks last, with an overall score of 40.74. This comes after finishing fifth from the bottom last year. Columbia University (42.89) again finished second from the bottom. Indiana University (43.87), the University of Washington (43.92), and Northeastern University (46.81) round out the bottom five. All of these schools received a failing grade of F for their speech climate. Harvard University (49.74), the lowest-ranked school for the past two years, now ranks 245 out of 257 schools.

Back on top: Claremont McKenna College

Claremont McKenna College earned this year’s top spot by ranking in the top 10 on nearly every student survey component — a rare achievement. The few exceptions include “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers” (24), “Disruptive Conduct” (39), and “Tolerance Difference” (186). The first two rankings are still impressive considering that 257 schools were surveyed and ranked, and CMC’s low ranking on “Tolerance Difference” is mostly explained by the ideological makeup of its student body, where liberal students outnumber conservatives by roughly a four-to-one ratio. But a closer look reveals that this score is not driven by hostility toward conservative speakers. Rather, CMC students exhibit unusually high tolerance for controversial liberal speakers, with a score of 9.89 — nearly two standard deviations above the national average of 8.31.

CMC has also long stood out on the policy front. It has maintained a “green light” rating from FIREsince March 2018 and, along with Vanderbilt, was one of only two schools to have adopted both the Chicago Principles and an official position of institutional neutrality before 2020. These commitments likely contribute to its strong performance on the “Administrative Support” component, where it ranks 2 nationwide. They are also reflected in student perceptions: 66% of CMC students say it is “very” or “extremely” clear that the administration protects free speech, and 51% say it is “very” or “extremely” likely that administrators would defend a speaker’s rights during a campus controversy.

Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, and Yale all improve

Much of Vanderbilt’s meteoric rise up the rankings from 140 last year to 7 overall this year can be attributed to its adoption of the Chicago Principles and a stance of institutional neutrality years ago, along with its more recent reform of its lone “yellow light” policy. Yet, these are not the only reasons for Vanderbilt’s improvement. This year, significantly more students at the university said that they can have an open and honest conversation about topics like abortion, climate change, freedom of speech, hate speech, religion, and transgender rights. On top of that, more students this year say this about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dartmouth College is the top-ranked Ivy League school for free speech at 35 — a massive improvement over last year’s ranking of 224. Over the past year, Dartmouth has revised its speech policies to earn a “green light” rating and officially adopted a stance of institutional neutrality, boosting its overall score by eight points.^[3] Dartmouth students’ perceptions of the administration’s support for freedom of speech also improved. This year, 27% of students said that it was “very” or “extremely” clear that the administration supports free speech on campus, compared to 20% of students last year. 

Dartmouth also performed particularly well on “Political Tolerance,” ranking 6 on “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers,” 2 on “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers,” and 2 on “Mean Tolerance.” Like CMC, Dartmouth’s rank on “Tolerance Difference” was lower at 129, but this is primarily due to the students’ extremely high tolerance for allowing controversial  liberal speakers on campus — Dartmouth’s “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers” score (10.01) was over two standard deviations above the national average (8.31). Its “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers” score (8.90) was also more than two standard deviations above the national average (7.12).

Like its Ivy League counterpart in New Hampshire, Yale University improved its ranking from 155 last year to 58 this year. Like CMC and Dartmouth, Yale does well on “Political Tolerance” — ranking 2 on “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers,” 21 on “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers,” and 3 on “Mean Tolerance.” Like CMC and Dartmouth, Yale has a considerably lower ranking on “Tolerance Difference,” reflecting a strong bias in favor of allowing controversial liberal speakers on campus, even though students are, compared to other schools, fairly tolerant of controversial conservative speakers as well.

Also of note is that Yale saw considerable improvement on the “Comfort Expressing Ideas” component, improving from a ranking of 95 last year to 20 this year. Furthermore, compared to last year, the percentage of Yale students saying they feel “somewhat” or “very” comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic increased in every campus setting this year — and in some cases considerably.

Consistently ‘good’ schools for free speech

Over the past six years, ��֭����’s College Free Speech Rankings have surveyed nearly 300,000 undergraduates at more than 250 colleges and universities across all 50 states. In that time, a handful of schools have consistently outperformed their peers in fostering environments more conducive to free expression. This group includes all of this year’s top five schools, as well as institutions like the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (74.21, C), Eastern Kentucky University (73.07, C), North Carolina State University (72.55, C), East Carolina University (71.85, C-), Florida State University (71.43, C-), the University of Virginia (70.33, C-), and Kansas State University (70.10, C-).

But calling these results “good” is, at best, a relative judgment. Grades of C or C- reflect average or even lackluster performance by typical academic standards. In truth, these schools stand out not because they’ve created truly robust speech climates, but because most of their peers are doing far worse. In other words, what passes for “strong” support for free expression in higher education today often reflects a low national bar rather than exemplary campus culture. Even the top-ranked school, CMC, barely obtained a B- — and did so by ranking in the top 10 on six of the nine survey components, and in the top 40 on all but one of them. The picture this paints of free expression on America’s college and university campuses is not a flattering one.

So, while some schools have managed to distinguish themselves — albeit modestly — at the top of the rankings, others have shown a troubling pattern in the opposite direction.

Barnard and Columbia remain at the bottom

Columbia and Barnard have been at the center of the campus protests that have roiled American higher education since October 7, 2023. In the wake of the Hamas-led attack on Israel and the subsequent military response, both schools have faced a series of high-profile speech controversies involving students, faculty, and invited speakers, many of which are documented in this section.^[4]

Last spring’s encampment protests also began at Barnard and Columbia and quickly became national flashpoints. Following those events, student perceptions of administrative support for free expression dropped sharply on both campuses. As documented in last year’s rankings and ��֭����’s Student Encampments Survey Report, Barnard ranked last out of 251 schools on the “Administrative Support” component, while Columbia ranked 247. Student self-censorship also rose significantly on both campuses during the same period.^[5]

Those trends have not reversed. 

Barnard College

This year, Barnard students again rank their administration last — or 257— on support for free speech. Columbia students place their administration second-to-last. But the situation at Barnard is especially stark. 

Its “Administrative Support” score is just 6.52 — more than four standard deviations below the national average of 11.32, and the lowest in the history of the College Free Speech Rankings. Columbia, by contrast, scores 8.37, nearly two standard deviations higher than Barnard. 

These feelings were fairly common among a number of Barnard students when they were asked to describe a time they self-censored on campus:

I feel as though for a lot of opinions I have to censor it or else there might be administrative backlash or discipline because our administration tends to be very harsh if you hold an opinion different to theirs.

Protests are relatively common on my campus, but there is a fear of being identified and expelled/reprimanded by administration for expressing opinions on specifically the Israel/Palestine conflict, due to high security and police presence on campus.

Constant and recurrent threats and follow through of admin bringing in NYPD and SWAT teams, assaulting students walking in front of the school during times of heightened police presence, allowing ICE on campus and to detain students without probable cause, constant and deliberate discrimination toward pro-Palestine movement/events/sentiments and ignorance of racism, religious discrimination, xenophobia.

In addition to its poor performance on administrative support, Barnard ranks near the bottom on several other core components of the survey:

• Comfort Expressing Ideas: Rank of 257, with a score of 8.02 (nearly two standard deviations below the national average of 9.53).
   
• Self-Censorship: Rank of 249, with a score of 11.26 (almost two standard deviations below the national average of 12.12).
   
• Tolerance Difference: Rank of 246, with a score of 3.34 (more than two standard deviations above the national average of 1.27, indicating a large disparity in tolerance based on speaker ideology).
   
• Disruptive Conduct: Rank of 226, with a score of 14.76 (one standard deviation below the national average of 15.50).
   
• Tolerance for Conservative Speakers: Rank of 223, with a score of 6.37 (one standard deviation below the average of 7.12).

On the remaining three survey components — “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers,” “Mean Tolerance,” and “Openness” — Barnard performs reasonably well, ranking 15, 58, and 74, respectively. It also scores above the national average on all three components. At first glance, these results may appear encouraging. But given that liberal students outnumber conservatives at Barnard by a ratio of roughly 14 to one — and that the college ranks poorly on tolerance for conservative speakers and tolerance asymmetry — these higher scores likely reflect ideological uniformity rather than true openness to a broad range of views. In this context, Barnard’s results point not to a vibrant culture of free expression, but to a campus where certain viewpoints dominate and dissenting perspectives are rarely encountered.

Barnard’s handling of specific speech-related incidents has also contributed to its low ranking. One notable example is the investigation of two student journalists, Celeste Gamble and Georgia Dillane. Both received formal notices requesting information about their involvement in a protest and were instructed not to bring representatives to the meeting. The notices also warned that failure to participate could be treated as a violation of the student code of conduct.^[6]

The protest in question was attended only by Gamble, who wore a press badge and left the scene when administrators announced a bomb threat. Dillane, meanwhile, was not present — she was anchoring a broadcast at the campus radio station. She later expressed concern that the investigation threatened her journalistic ethics.^[7] The station’s legal team responded to Barnard, and the matter initially appeared resolved. However, three weeks later, Dillane received a second notice — this time from the director of Student Intervention and Success — accusing her of multiple conduct violations, including disorderly conduct, disruptive behavior, unauthorized entry, and vandalism. Just hours before her scheduled disciplinary meeting on May 5, Barnard informed her that they no longer believed she was present during the “unauthorized protest” and declared the matter closed.^[8]

Then, on May 7, Gamble was involved in another episode that raised additional concerns about administrative conduct. After identifying herself as a student journalist to Public Safety, she scanned her school ID while exiting Columbia University’s Butler Library, where a pro-Palestinian protest was taking place. Gamble, along with three other student journalists (Luisa Sukkar and Natalie Lahr from Barnard, and Sawyer Huckabee from Columbia), left the building before Columbia’s interim president authorized the New York Police Department to “assist in securing the building” — an operation that ultimately led to 78 arrests.^[9] Despite leaving before the police intervention, Gamble and the others were soon notified that they were suspended.^[10] Barnard Dean Leslie Grinage reportedly emailed Gamble, Sukkar, and Lahr about their “alleged actions at Butler Library,” informing them of the disciplinary action. The suspensions were lifted a few days later.^[11]

These disciplinary controversies were preceded by administrative decisions that raised similar concerns about selective enforcement of policy in response to controversial speech. In one instance, Barnard canceled an event at its Center for Research on Women just two days after confirming it.^[12] The event was to feature speakers Mohammed el-Kurd and Mahmood Mamdani and was co-sponsored by Columbia University’s chapter of FIREfor Justice in Palestine. Barnard officials cited a policy requiring five weeks’ advance approval for events co-sponsored by non-Barnard entities. However, the center asserted that this policy had not been previously enforced, even when working with outside groups in the past.^[13] In a separate case, a planned event titled “Resistance 101” was moved from the Center to Columbia’s LGBTQ+ “Q House,” and livestreamed instead — reportedly in response to student complaints.^[14]

These incidents illustrate more than just bureaucratic overreach — they highlight how vague, inconsistent, and punitive enforcement of campus policy can have a chilling effect on student speech, particularly journalism. They help explain why Barnard students perceive such a lack of administrative support for free expression.

Columbia University

Columbia’s free speech environment is only marginally better than Barnard’s, according to this year’s rankings. Columbia ranks 254 on “Comfort Expressing Ideas” — barely ahead of Barnard — and 226 on “Self-Censorship.” It also ranks below Barnard on “Openness,” coming in at 131. However, its performance on the political tolerance components is considerably stronger, resembling those of schools like Claremont McKenna, Dartmouth, and Yale. Columbia ranks 7 on “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers,” 15 on “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers,” 5 on “Mean Tolerance,” and 173 on “Tolerance Difference.” It also outperforms Barnard on “Disruptive Conduct,” ranking 129.

Like Barnard, Columbia’s handling of speech-related incidents continues to raise concerns. Three students — Aidan Parisi, Brandon Murphy, and Catherine Curran-Groome — along with an unnamed student, were investigated for allegedly hosting the Resistance 101 panel mentioned above, which had been relocated from Barnard’s Center for Research on Women. The event took place in a dorm room within Columbia’s LGBTQ+ Q House. Following the investigation, all four students were suspended for one year and given just 24 hours to vacate campus housing.^[15] The preliminary charges included disruptive behavior, endangerment, violations of university policy, and failure to comply. Parisi, Murphy, and Curran-Groome have since filed a lawsuit against the university.^[16]

Student journalist Sawyer Huckabee also was given a temporary suspension for being in Butler Library during the pro-Palestinian protest that resulted in 78 arrests. Huckabee had exited the library along with three Barnard student journalists before the NYPD arrived. Nevertheless, he was notified by Columbia’s rules administrator, Gregory Wawro, of his suspension — though it was lifted just a few hours later.^[17]

Faculty at Columbia have also faced consequences for controversial speech. In 2024, Abdul Kayum Ahmed, a professor at the Mailman School of Public Health, was accused of “pro-Palestinian indoctrination” in a Wall Street Journal article that cited his references to Israel as a “colonial settler state” and his coursework on the health impacts of displacement among Palestinians.^[18] Shortly after the article’s publication, Columbia administrators took a series of actions. Ahmed was removed from the Core Curriculum teaching team, informed he could no longer teach his Health and Human Rights Advocacy course, and ultimately notified by the dean that his appointment would not be renewed — effectively ending his tenure at the university.^[19]

Earlier this year, Columbia investigated Daniel Di Martino, a Ph.D. student in economics, for “conduct that could constitute discriminatory harassment” following complaints about his social media posts. In those posts, Di Martino expressed his views on transgender rights, including statements such as “God does not teach us that we can change our gender,” and support for politicians who oppose gender-affirming hormone therapy and surgery for minors. During a meeting with officials from the Office of Institutional Equity, he was shown screenshots of his posts and told that such content could create a “hostile environment” for other students. Administrators suggested that if transgender students saw the posts, they might feel unsafe on campus. Di Martino defended his comments as protected religious expression and argued that the investigation reflected bias against conservative and religious viewpoints.^[20]

Visible force and invisible voices: the chilling effect at Indiana University

While Columbia and Barnard have drawn national attention for their speech controversies, similar patterns of administrative overreach are playing out at public universities across the country. At Indiana University, tensions escalated last spring when administrators enacted a more restrictive speech policy banning the construction of unauthorized structures on campus during a late-night meeting — just hours before students began setting up an encampment.^[21] The next day, the university called in state police, who placed snipers on the roof of the student union building.^[22] The incident sparked widespread concern among students, contributing to IU’s poor performance in this year’s rankings.

When asked to describe a moment when they felt unable to express their opinion on campus, several IU students pointed to this incident: 

I felt like I could not express my opinion on campus when protests for Israel Palestine conflicts were going on. When we tried to have encampments, our university pointed snipers at students to scare us away. It was dangerous and unsafe. 

When I, as a student leader and representative of my entire campus, had a sniper gun pointed at me when trying to defend a protest that was in compliance with  school policies. 

We had a protest for the liberation of Palestine and the school posted a sniper on top of a building nearby. 

The president has called snipers on protestors before.

Beyond fear of physical intimidation, students also expressed concern about administrative retaliation:

During the peak of protests on IU's campus last year, I attended a few protests and speeches. Out of fear for my safety and ability to continue attending IU, I stopped going to the protests. I couldn't risk losing my financial aid or being arrested. 

There was one time I saw a flyer online for a protest on campus, but I did not attend because I was worried about how the administration would respond. I did agree with what the protest was about, though.

Our administration at Indiana University has publicly and repeatedly silenced students that speak out on controversial topics. I am afraid that I would get retaliation from the administration in terms of a lawsuit, a ban from campus, and expulsion from the university.

Administration at my school arrested and attacked pro-palestine protestors, and I felt I should not be vocal about my pro-Palestinian views on social media or join the protest because of admin’s actions. 

I felt like I could not express my support for Palestine without the administration assuming it was a violent protest sending hate messages towards Jewish ��֭����.

This sense of fear is reflected in IU’s survey data. When asked whether they had ever been disciplined or threatened with discipline for their expression on campus, 23% of IU students said yes — 2% said they had been disciplined, and 21% said they had been threatened with it.

IU ranks 251 out of 257 schools on “Administrative Support,” with a score of 9.20 — over one standard deviation below the national average. Only 23% of students say it is “very” or “extremely” clear that the administration protects free speech, while 44% say it is “not at all” or “not very” clear. When asked whether the administration would defend a speaker’s right to express their views during a campus controversy, 49% said “not at all” or “not very” likely, compared to just 15% who said “very” or “extremely” likely.

Consistent with the student comments above, IU also ranks poorly on: 

• Openness: Rank of 255, with a score of 6.05 (over two standard deviations below the national average of 7.19).
• Self-Censorship: Rank of 246, with a score of 11.38 (over one standard deviation below the national average of 12.12).
• Comfort Expressing Ideas: Rank of 227, with a score of 9.10 (over one standard deviation below the national average of 9.53).

FIRE also report difficulty discussing a wide range of controversial issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, abortion, and the 2024 presidential election.

Roughly a third of IU students say they self-censor in conversations with peers (31%), professors (32%), and in classroom discussions (33%). A majority also say they feel uncomfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic either in class (57%) or in a public campus space like the quad, dining hall, or lounge (57%).

Like Barnard and Columbia, IU’s overall score also suffers from how it has responded to recent campus speech controversies — beside the encampment protests. This includes the cancellation of multiple speaking events and a retrospective art exhibit, an attempt by student protesters to disrupt a fourth event, and the suspension of multiple students for their involvement in the encampment protests using the newly revised late-night expressive policy prohibiting the construction of unapproved structures on campus.^[23]

These actions at IU reflect a broader national trend: When university administrations respond to speech and protest with sudden rule changes, opaque enforcement, or punitive discipline, they undermine student trust and contribute to a climate of self-censorship. What happened at IU is not an outlier. It mirrors a wider pattern across both public and private institutions, where administrative overreach — especially when tied to politically charged expression — leads to measurable declines in students’ comfort expressing their views. FIREnotice when speech is chilled not by peer pressure alone, but by the very institutions tasked with protecting open discourse.

Harvard: some improvements, lingering distrust

Harvard University had held the bottom spot in the College Free Speech Rankings for two years in a row, finishing well behind Columbia last year and the University of Pennsylvania the year before. This year, while Harvard still performs poorly — ranking 245 out of 257 — it shows some modest signs of improvement.

Like several of its Ivy League peers, Harvard scores relatively well on the political tolerance components: 24 for “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers,” 33 for “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers,” and 13 for “Mean Tolerance.” However, it ranks lower on “Tolerance Difference” (179) suggesting that students remain significantly more comfortable with liberal speakers than conservative ones — similar to patterns seen at Columbia, Dartmouth, and Yale.

Harvard’s rank on “Openness” (63) is also above average. Only five topics are identified by more than 30% of students as difficult to discuss openly: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (73%), affirmative action (39%), abortion (33%), transgender rights (32%), and the 2024 presidential election (32%).

Yet despite these relative strengths, a majority of Harvard students report being “very” or “somewhat” uncomfortable expressing their views on controversial political topics across all of the campus settings FIREasks about.

A deeper concern is students’ lack of trust in the administration. Forty-one percent say it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that Harvard protects free speech on campus, while just 20% say the opposite. When asked whether the administration would defend someone’s rights during a controversy over offensive speech, 40% said “not at all” or “not very” likely — compared to only 8% who said “very” or “extremely” likely. Harvard ranks 247 on “Administrative Support,” with a score of 9.53, about one standard deviation below the national average.

Those perceptions reflect students’ experience. Thirteen campus incidents influenced Harvard’s score this year — some positively, but most negatively. Six involved attempted or successful disruptions of speaking events, five involved protests in support of Palestinians in Gaza, and two involved alleged anti-Israel expression by faculty or invited speakers.

One relatively positive example occurred during then-Interim President Alan Garber’s Alumni Day speech in 2024. A protester rushed the stage, doused Garber with gold glitter, and shouted, “For the baby monkeys, for the animals in the labs, Harvard, shut down the baby monkey labs now!” Garber was briefly escorted offstage by university police but returned, completed his speech, and emphasized the importance of free expression.^[24] Because the disruption was unsuccessful and Garber modeled a constructive response, this incident earned Harvard a bonus in the rankings.

Other incidents were less constructive. In 2024, Senator Joe Manchin was invited to speak at the Harvard Institute of Politics. His remarks were repeatedly interrupted by protesters from Climate Defiance, one of whom stood beside Manchin and shouted, “You sold our futures and got rich doing it, you sick fuck!” An aide physically pushed the protester to the ground. Although Manchin attempted to continue the discussion, protesters refused to cooperate and were eventually removed by campus police. Manchin completed his talk, but the disruption impacted Harvard’s score.^[25]

Later that year, former Trump administration official Jason Greenblatt was speaking to a small group of students at Harvard Law School when hundreds of protesters marched through the building with noisemakers, megaphones, and drums. The disruption forced Greenblatt and attendees to take shelter until the protesters left, contributing to another penalty impacting the overall score.^[26]

These examples illustrate a broader trend: while Harvard may be showing signs of improvement, it continues to struggle with administrative trust, enforcement consistency, and the protection of controversial speech.

Harvard is far from alone. While it has earned a great deal of attention for its consistently low rankings, most of the 257 colleges and universities in this year’s report receive similarly poor grades when it comes to fostering a healthy climate for free expression. In fact, only 11 institutions score a C or higher, and many of the nation’s most prominent schools fall well below that mark. If Harvard’s modest gains are worth noting, they also underscore just how low the national baseline remains.

Conclusion: most schools receive failing grades

The 2026 rankings reveal a bleak picture: 166 of the 257 schools evaluated received an overall score below 60 — earning a failing grade for their campus speech climate. This group includes some of the nation’s most prestigious institutions: Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Johns Hopkins University, Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan, and both the University of California at Berkeley and in Los Angeles. Notably, UCLA also holds the distinction of being the lowest-ranked “green light” school this year.

Another 64 schools fall into the D range, with scores ranging from 60 to 69. Among them are several “green light” institutions — schools that earn top marks for their written speech policies, yet where the day-to-day climate for free expression remains flawed. This list includes Duke University, Emory University, Texas A&M University, the University of Florida, the University of Maryland, and Washington University in St Louis.

In short, even the so-called success stories struggle to meet a minimal basic standard. Only 11 schools earned a campus speech climate grade of C or higher. Their average score? A modest 75, and we give a golf clap to schools like Purdue University whose administration has long been a vocal proponent of free speech and, last year, adopted a policy of institutional neutrality, proclaiming that “it itself is not a critic.” 

Yet, when The Exponent, an independent student newspaper on campus, published an editorial announcing the removal of the names and images of pro-Palestinian activists from its website over concerns that the federal government would use them in its efforts targeting what the government called “pro-jihadist” speech, Purdue’s administration cited its newly adopted policy of “institutional neutrality” to inform The Exponent that it must stop using the name “Purdue” in its URL, that it was ending preferential parking for the newspaper’s staff, and that it would no longer circulate the newspaper.^[27] This incident occurred shortly after the cutoff point for inclusion in this year’s rankings, so it will not be reflected in Purdue’s score until the 2027 College Free Speech Rankings are released. But it is a helpful reminder that even schools with strong overall records on free expression can, and do, make decisions that run counter to the very principles we commend them for holding.

Claremont McKenna College stands alone with a grade of B-, but that’s only because scores were rounded to the nearest whole number when assigning letter grades — CMC scored a 79.86, the highest score ever. This, combined with their performance on most of the survey components, deserves recognition. But it’s still only somewhat above average by traditional academic standards, and topping an underwhelming list isn’t exactly an overwhelming achievement.

These findings should continue to raise alarm. The top-ranked school for freedom of speech got a B-, the only time any school has even gotten above a C+. This means that the vast majority of American colleges and universities are failing to protect and foster free expression. In an era when open inquiry and dissent are more essential than ever, campus speech climates are not just unhealthy — they are in free fall.

Notes

[1] U.S. Department of Education (March 10, 2025). U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Sends Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitic Discrimination and Harassment: Letters warn of potential enforcement actions if institutions do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus. Available online: . 

[2] The following R packages were used to calculate the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings:

Johnson, J.D. (2023). pollster: Calculate Crosstab and Topline Tables of Weighted Survey Data. R package version 0.1.6. , was used to produce topline results and demographic crosstabs; Larmarange J (2025). labelled: Manipulating Labelled Data. R package version 2.14. 1.9000. , was used to import variable and value labels into the data file for the survey items; Lumley, T. (2024). survey: analysis of complex survey samples. R package version 4.4-2. , was used to calculate the survey components of the College Free Speech Rankings, and each school’s overall score.; Wickham et al., (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686, , was used to clean and subset data for additional analyses. 

[3] FIRE(September 16, 2024). Dartmouth earns ��֭����’s top rating for free speech: Dartmouth is the only Ivy League school that holds ��֭����'s best ‘green light’ speech code rating after new president course corrects. Available online: /news/dartmouth-earns-fires-top-rating-free-speech. 

[4] 2026 College Free Speech Rankings Behavioral Metrics. Available online: /research-learn/2026-college-free-speech-rankings-behavioral-metrics

[5] Stevens, S.T. (2024). 2025 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The ��֭����. Available online: /research-learn/2025-college-free-speech-rankings; Stevens, S.T. & Honeycutt, N. (2024). 2024 Student Encampment Protests: How did the student encampment protests impact the state of free expression on America’s college campuses? The ��֭����. Available online: /research-learn/2024-student-encampment-protests. 

[6] Bose, M. (May 6, 2025). A student journalist covered a pro-Palestine protest: Soon, her graduation came under threat. Columbia Journalism Review. Available online: .; Protect the 1st (May 12, 2025). Barnard College investigates student journalists for conducting journalism. Protect the 1st. Available online: .

[7] Bose (May 6, 2025); Protect the 1st (May 12, 2025). 

[8] Bose (May 6, 2025).

[9] Bose, M. & Oakes, A. (May 10, 2025). Undue process: FIREstudying at Columbia library were suspended for protest they took no part in. The Intercept. Available online: ; Pillai, D., Hernandez Lopez, A., & Sukkar, L. (May 7, 2025). Pro-Palestinian protesters and Public Safety officers clash at ‘Emergency Rally’ in Butler Library. The Columbia Spectator. Available online: .

[10] Banerjee, I. (May 9, 2025). Barnard suspends WKCR and Spectator reporters who covered Butler Library protest: Columbia issued an interim suspension to a WKCR reporter but revoked it hours later. The Columbia Spectator. Available online: .

[11] Bose & Oakes (May 10, 2025).

[12] Mueller, S. (November 13, 2023). FIREand faculty say Barnard administration has undermined academic freedom: Following a series of new policies from the Barnard administration, students and faculty share their thoughts. The Barnard Bulletin. Available online: . 

[13] Huddleston, S. & Mendell, C. (November 10, 2023). Columbia suspends SJP and JVP following ‘unauthorized’ Thursday walkout. The Columbia Spectator. Available online: ; Mueller (November 13, 2023).

[14] Costescu, J. (March 25, 2024). At Columbia, an Israeli-designated terror group teaches 'Palestinian Resistance 101'—and lauds plane hijackings: 'The fact is that October 7 changed the world … we saw the potential of a future for Palestine liberated from Zionism,' Samidoun's Charlotte Kates says. Washington Free Beacon. Available online: .

[15] Huddleston, S., Stahl, M., & Mendell, C. (April 4, 2024). Four Columbia students suspended, evicted from University housing following unauthorized ‘Resistance 101’ event: Columbia initially suspended six students on Wednesday night, but lifted two suspensions on Thursday. The Columbia Spectator. Available online: .

[16] Chekuru, K. (February 3, 2025). Columbia students just sued the university for attacks on pro-Palestine activism: As Trump threatens to deport ‘pro-Hamas’ students, campus activists who were suspended last spring fight back. Drop Site News. Available online: . 

[17] Banerjee, I. (May 9, 2025). Barnard suspends WKCR and Spectator reporters who covered Butler Library protest: Columbia issued an interim suspension to a WKCR reporter but revoked it hours later. The Columbia Spectator. Available online: .

[18] Belkin, D. (March 8, 2024). Some Clumbia professors accused of pro-Palestinian indoctrination: Some students and faculty circulate recordings of lectures they say cross the line. The Wall Street Journal. Available online: . 

[19] de Vries, D. (April 16, 2024). New York City universities step up purge of pro-Palestinian faculty. World Socialist Web Site. Available online: . 

[20] Di Martino, D. (April 15, 2025). Columbia is targeting Catholic students like me: The university says it’s cracking down on campus anti-Semitism. Instead, it’s going after a student for publicly expressing his faith. City Journal. Available online: ; Porto, G. (April 17, 2025). Columbia student: University’s office combating antisemitism is punishing students who say men aren’t women. Catholic Vote. Available online: .

[21] Forest, J. & Hawkins, T. (August 2, 2024). IU clears pro-Palestine encampment in Dunn Meadow. Indiana Daily Student. Available online: ; Smith, M. & Williams, K. (May 2, 2024). At Indiana University, protests only add to a year full of conflicts: The tumult in Bloomington, Ind., where large protests have led to dozens of arrests and calls for university leaders to resign, shows the reach of the protest movement. The New York Times. Available online: . 

[22] Lane, L. (April 30, 2025). Fact check on statements from IU, ISP: Snipers, external participants, free speech. The Herald-Times. Available online: .

[23] Smith & Williams (May 2, 2024).

[24] Haider, E.H. & Kettles, C.E. (June 1, 2024). Animal rights protester dumps glitter on Harvard President Alan Garber before alumni day speech. The Harvard Crimson. Available online: .

[25] Mao, W.C. & Patel, D.T. (March 2, 2024). Climate protester thrown to the ground after interrupting Joe Manchin’s Harvard IOP talk. The Harvard Crimson. Available online: .

[26] Bernstein, D. (January 11, 2024). Antisemitism lawsuit filed against Harvard University, includes allegations re Harvard Law School. Reason. Available online: .

[27] Marchand, R. (July 9, 2025). Purdue fails its own test on institutional neutrality. The ��֭����. Available online: /news/purdue-fails-its-own-test-institutional-neutrality.

Topline results

How clear is it to you that your college’s administration protects free speech on campus?

Not at all clear   5%
Not very clear 16%
Somewhat clear 43%
Very clear 28%
Extremely clear   8%

If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how likely is it that your college’s administration would defend the speaker's right to express their views?

Not at all likely   5%
Not very likely 22%
Somewhat likely 48%
Very likely 19%
Extremely likely   5%

How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus?

Publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic.

Very uncomfortable 23%
Somewhat uncomfortable 36%
Somewhat comfortable 31%
Very comfortable 10%

Expressing disagreement with one of your professors about a controversial political topic in a written assignment.

Very uncomfortable 16%
Somewhat uncomfortable 34%
Somewhat comfortable 37%
Very comfortable 13%

Expressing your views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion.

Very uncomfortable 17%
Somewhat uncomfortable 35%
Somewhat comfortable 37%
Very comfortable 12%

Expressing your views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space such as a quad, dining hall, or lounge.

Very uncomfortable 15%
Somewhat uncomfortable 33%
Somewhat comfortable 27%
Very comfortable 15%

Expressing an unpopular political opinion to your fellow students on a social media account tied to your name.

Very uncomfortable 30%
Somewhat uncomfortable 36%
Somewhat comfortable 26%
Very comfortable   8%

This next series of questions asks you about self-censorship in different settings. For the purpose of these questions, self-censorship is defined as follows:

Refraining from sharing certain views because you fear social (e.g., exclusion from social events), professional (e.g., losing job or promotion), legal (e.g., prosecution or fine), or violent (e.g., assault) consequences, whether in person or remotely (e.g., by phone or online), and whether the consequences come from state or non-state sources.

How often do you self-censor during conversations with other students on campus?

Never   9%
Rarely 32%
Occasionally, once or twice a month 35%
Fairly often, a couple times a week 19%
Very often, nearly every day   5%

How often do you self-censor during conversations with your professors?

Never   9%
Rarely 30%
Occasionally, once or twice a month 34%
Fairly often, a couple times a week 19%
Very often, nearly every day   8%

How often do you self-censor during classroom discussions?

Never   7%
Rarely 28%
Occasionally, once or twice a month 37%
Fairly often, a couple times a week 21%
Very often, nearly every day   7%

How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following actions to protest a campus speaker? 

Shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.

Always acceptable   5%
Sometimes acceptable 31%
Rarely acceptable 35%
Never acceptable 28%

Blocking other students from attending a campus speech.

Always acceptable   3%
Sometimes acceptable 19%
Rarely acceptable 32%
Never acceptable 46%

Using violence to stop a campus speech.

Always acceptable   2%
Sometimes acceptable 13%
Rarely acceptable 19%
Never acceptable 66%

Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who has previously expressed the following idea?

Transgender people have a mental disorder.

Definitely should not allow this speaker 41%
Probably should not allow this speaker 33%
Probably should allow this speaker 17%
Definitely should allow this speaker   8%

Abortion should be completely illegal.

Definitely should not allow this speaker 28%
Probably should not allow this speaker 32%
Probably should allow this speaker 29%
Definitely should allow this speaker 11%

Black Lives Matter is a hate group.

Definitely should not allow this speaker 42%
Probably should not allow this speaker 34%
Probably should allow this speaker 17%
Definitely should allow this speaker   7%

The Catholic Church is a pedophilic institution.

Definitely should not allow this speaker 23%
Probably should not allow this speaker 39%
Probably should allow this speaker 28%
Definitely should allow this speaker 10%

The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.

Definitely should not allow this speaker 26%
Probably should not allow this speaker 36%
Probably should allow this speaker 27%
Definitely should allow this speaker 11%

Children should be able to transition without parental consent.

Definitely should not allow this speaker 18%
Probably should not allow this speaker 33%
Probably should allow this speaker 36%
Definitely should allow this speaker 13%

Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus? (select all that apply) 

Abortion 46%
Affirmative action 21%
China 12%
Climate change 14%
Crime 14%
Economic inequality 20%
Freedom of speech 20%
Gay rights 31%
Gender inequality 28%
Gun control 33%
Hate speech 27%
Immigration 33%
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict 53%
The 2024 presidential election 42%
Police misconduct 28%
Racial inequality 34%
Religion 32%
Sexual assault 30%
The Supreme Court 13%
Transgender rights 41%
None of the above 13%

On your campus, how often have you felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how other students, a professor, or the administration would respond?

Never 19%
Rarely 37%
Occasionally, once or twice a month 27%
Fairly often, a couple times a week 11%
Very often, nearly every day   5%

Have you ever been disciplined by your college’s administration for expression on campus?

Yes, I have been disciplined.   3%
No, but I have been threatened with discipline. 11%
I have not been disciplined nor threatened with discipline. 86%

How often, if at all, do you hide your political beliefs from your professors in an attempt to get a better grade?

Never 38%
Rarely 28%
Occasionally, once or twice a month 20%
Fairly often, a couple times a week   9%
Very often, nearly every day   5%

How likely or unlikely is it that a student on campus would be reported to the administration by another student for saying something controversial?

Very unlikely 11%
Unlikely 27%
Neither likely or unlikely 35%
Likely 21%
Very likely   5%

How likely or unlikely is it that a professor on campus would be reported to the administration by a student for saying something controversial? 

Very unlikely   9%
Unlikely 24%
Neither likely or unlikely 34%
Likely 25%
Very likely   7%

Have you or anyone you know filed a Title IX complaint?

I have filed a Title IX complaint.   2%
I both know someone who has and have myself filed a Title IX complaint.   4%
I have not but I know someone who has filed a Title IX complaint. 22%
I have neither filed a Title IX complaint, nor know anyone who has. 72%

Has a Title IX complaint ever been filed against you or someone you know?

A Title IX complaint was filed against me.   1%
A Title IX complaint was filed against me and someone I know.   3%
A Title IX complaint was filed against someone I know, but not me. 16%
A Title IX complaint has never been filed against me or someone I know. 81%

2026 College Free Speech Rankings

About us

College Pulse

College Pulse is a survey research and analytics company dedicated to understanding the attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of today’s college students. College Pulse delivers custom data-driven marketing and research solutions, utilizing its unique American College Student Panel™ that includes over 1,000,000 college students and recent alumni from more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and universities in all 50 states. 

For more information, visit collegepulse.com or @CollegeInsights on X.

FIRE

The FIRE(��֭����) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIREalso recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending these rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses.

For more information, visit thefire.org or @thefireorg on X.

Acknowledgments and suggested citation

Our gratitude goes to Sean Stevens for questionnaire design, developing the scoring methodology, data analysis, and authoring this report; and to Nathan Honeycutt and Sam Abrams for support with questionnaire design, developing the scoring methodology, data analysis, data validation, and editing. We would additionally like to thank Keelyn M. Gallagher, Logan Dougherty, Angela C. Erickson, Emily Nayyer, and Ryne Weiss for support with data validation; and Khalia Abner and Jackson Fleagle for designing this report.

Greg Lukianoff
President and CEO, ��֭���� 

Citation: 

Stevens, S.T. (2025). 2026 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The ��֭����.

/rankings