����ֱ��

Since 2006, ����ֱ��’s Spotlight database has tracked speech codes at hundreds of the top public and private colleges in the United States. Most college students attending these institutions can reasonably expect that freedom of expression will be upheld on campus. Public institutions are legally bound by the First Amendment, and the vast majority of private institutions promise their students free speech rights. 

At a time when more than two in five students (42%)  that it is only “somewhat” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus, while roughly a quarter (24%) report that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that it does so, it is perhaps more important than ever for university leaders to ensure their policies comport with First Amendment standards. However, ����ֱ��’s annual review of our Spotlight database reveals most schools continue to maintain policies that infringe on free speech rights. 

Of the 490 schools included in ����ֱ��’s Spotlight database, 72 (14.7%) earn an overall “red light” rating for maintaining policies that clearly and substantially restrict free speech. Three hundred and thirty-seven (68.8%) earn an overall “yellow light” rating for maintaining policies that impose vague regulations on expression. And 73 (14.9%) earn an overall “green light” rating for maintaining policies that do not seriously imperil free expression. In addition, eight schools (1.6%) earn a “Warning” rating because they clearly and consistently state that they hold a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech.

This marks a substantial improvement from the most recent Spotlight report and the reversal of a concerning trend. The number of green light schools increased by 10 schools, from 63 to 73, a 2% overall increase. Additionally, the number of red light schools decreased substantially, from 98 to 72, reducing the percentage of red light schools from 20% to just 14.7%.

Perhaps most notably, this 19th edition of the Spotlight on Speech Codes report marks the first time that the number of green light schools outnumbers the number of red light schools.

In general, private schools maintain more restrictive speech codes than their public school counterparts: Private schools are significantly less likely to earn green light ratings and more likely to earn red light ratings than public schools. While 10.6% of public schools earn red lights, over 28% of private schools do. Meanwhile, over 17% of public schools earn green light ratings, while only 7.1% of private schools met that standard.

Below, you can learn more about our methodology, major findings, and a comprehensive list of individual schools’ ratings.

If you’d like to encourage a school you care about to revise its speech codes, ����ֱ�� is here to help! For more information, contact: speechcodes@thefire.org.

Methodology

FIRE rated 377 four-year public institutions and 113 private institutions nationwide on the extent to which their written regulations on student expression restrict free speech.

A red light institution maintains at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech or bars public access to its speech-related policies by requiring a university login and password for access.

A yellow light institution maintains policies that could too easily be applied to suppress protected speech or maintains policies that, while clearly restricting freedom of speech, restrict relatively narrow categories of speech. 

If ����ֱ�� finds that a university’s written policies do not seriously threaten student expression, we award it a green light rating.^[1]

FIRE gives a “Warning” rating to a university when it clearly and consistently states that it holds a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech so as to alert prospective students and faculty members. This assessment is based solely on a school’s written regulations and does not take into account its broader climate for free speech. 

Indeed, the speech code ratings do not evaluate a university’s “as-applied” violations of student speech rights or other cases of censorship, student- or faculty-led calls for punishment of protected speech, or related incidents and controversies. For a look at the campus climate at top colleges that takes such factors into account, please see ����ֱ��’s annual College Free Speech Rankings at: .

Major Findings

For the first time in the history of this report, the number of schools that earned an overall green light rating was greater than the number of schools that earned an overall red light rating. This positive milestone marks a stark reversal of a concerning multi-year trend we highlighted last year.

In our most recent, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2024 report, we noted that — after 15 consecutive years in which the percentage of red light schools had decreased — the percentage of schools that earned an overall red light rating had increased for a second time in a row. We noted that this “continued backslide is due, in large part, to schools’ continued maintenance of overbroad policies on harassment that can too easily be applied against protected speech.”

Spurring the reversal of this negative trend, a number of red light schools collaborated with ����ֱ�� to revise the harassment policies discussed in that report, improving their overall rating. In addition, a significant number of red light schools were spurred by positive actions initiated at a board or systemwide level. For example, multiple Massachusetts schools improved their ratings after the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education revised its Equal Opportunity, Nondiscrimination, and Title IX policy to remove problematic language surrounding its definitions and examples of harassment.

Consistent with the reduction in the number of overall red light schools, there has been an increase in the number of institutions that earn an overall yellow light rating: 68.8% of institutions now earn one, compared to 65.4% in our most recent report. 71.6% of public schools and 59.3% of private schools earn an overall yellow light. It's important to note that, while it is significant that 26 schools improved upon their red light rating, only one of those schools — Louisiana Tech University — improved from a red light to an overall green light rating. The other 25 schools now earn a yellow light rating. We invite them to continue upon this positive momentum and work towards earning an overall green light rating in the future.

FIRE was pleased to welcome Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, Louisiana Tech University, Missouri University of Science & Technology, the University of Missouri - Columbia, the University of Missouri - St. Louis, Clemson University, the University of South Carolina Columbia, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Middle Tennessee State University to the green light list this year, bringing the total number of green light schools to an all-time high of 73 (17.2% of public schools and 7.1% of private schools).

Dartmouth has the distinction of being the only Ivy League school that earns ����ֱ��’s green light rating.

Eight schools, or 1.6%, earn a Warning rating. Six private schools and two public military academies earn this rating for clearly placing other values above free expression rights.

In contrast to restrictive speech codes, 113 university administrations, university systems, or faculty bodies have adopted free speech policy statements modeled after the “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” at the University of Chicago, also known as the “Chicago Statement,” actively committing their institutions to upholding freedom of expression.^[2]

In addition, 32 institutions have adopted an official position of institutional neutrality substantially similar to the principles best articulated by the University of Chicago’s “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action,” better known as the “Kalven Report.”^[3]

Between our ongoing efforts and the positive momentum spurred by these dozens of institutions, ����ֱ�� anticipates institutions will continue to embrace the principles of the Chicago Statement and Kalven Report in 2025 and beyond.

Stakeholders who are interested in learning more about how colleges and universities can take steps to reform restrictive speech codes can find useful resources on ����ֱ��’s website.

To view ����ֱ��’s Model Code of Student Conduct, visit: /research-learn/model-code-student-conduct

To view ����ֱ��’s Model Speech Policies for College Campuses, visit: /research-learn/model-speech-policies-college-campuses

Spotlight On: Bias Reporting Teams

The two categories of speech codes that were most frequently revised during this reporting period were harassment policies and policies on bias and hate speech, specifically those related to bias reporting systems. Bias reporting systems encourage students to anonymously report on one another — and on faculty members, staff, and other members of the campus community — whenever they encounter speech or expression they perceive as biased or offensive. These systems vary in how they respond to reports, but they often subject students and faculty members to educational “interventions” by conflict-wary administrators, if not protracted and chilling investigations or outright punishment, as a consequence for engaging in vaguely-defined acts of “bias.”

Bias reporting systems are not new. ����ֱ�� raised the alarm in some of the earliest editions of this report, dating back to 2009.^[4] But they exploded in popularity over the past decade, with the worst versions of these schemes adopted by hundreds of institutions across the country.^[5] Some institutions recognized the tension between promoting free speech and academic freedom and working to combat the presence of “bias,” and attempted to craft systems that did not directly discipline protected speech. Too many ignored this tension entirely. The most egregious bias reporting systems solicit reports of bias and other problematic speech using definitions of these terms that explicitly encompass speech protected by the First Amendment.

Even when a bias response team does not have the power to take punitive action, the invitation for peers to report each other for objectionable speech and the prospect of an official investigation may well make some students and faculty more cautious about what opinions they dare to express.

As bias reporting teams have invited students to report protected speech simply because it offends them, institutions have spent the past decade willingly becoming referees of political and academic speech. But many now seem to be reconsidering this approach, if not abandoning it completely.

Over a dozen institutions have either substantially revised or eliminated entirely their bias reporting systems. Others have significantly reduced the prominence of their bias reporting teams, either by reducing the number of places on their website the team is mentioned or by requiring students enter their credentials to access the policy information.

There are many potential motivating factors that have led institutions to revise or rescind their bias reporting practices. A number of lawsuits have challenged bias reporting schemes and courts have recognized the potential chilling effect they can have on student speech.^[6] In addition, there has been a renewed focus on campus free speech matters in recent years, spurred by students, alumni, trustees, and advocacy groups like ����ֱ��. Finally, elected officials at the state and federal level have increasingly scrutinized policies, practices, and curriculum at colleges and universities across the country, at times appropriately^[7] and at others inappropriately.^[8] Given the wide geographical range of institutions revising their bias reporting policies (from Florida and Alabama to Maine and Massachusetts) and the range in quality of the policies being revised (from red light to green light policies), it is reasonable to conclude that there is no single reason for the shifting approach to bias reporting policies.

Nevertheless, ����ֱ�� welcomes this growing shift away from bias reporting teams and invites other institutions to follow suit. As we have said for over a decade, bias response teams create — indeed, they are intended to create — a chilling effect on campus expression. Even when a bias response team does not have the power to take punitive action, the invitation for peers to report each other for objectionable speech and the prospect of an official investigation may well make some students and faculty more cautious about what opinions they dare to express.^[9] These systems and resulting impacts have long posed grave First Amendment concerns. 

Notes

[1] ����ֱ��, Dartmouth Earns ����ֱ��’s Top Rating for Free Speech, ����ֱ�� (June 27, 2024), /news/dartmouth-earns-fires-top-rating-free-speech. 

[2] ����ֱ��, Chicago Statement: University and Faculty Body Support, ����ֱ��, /research-learn/chicago-statement-university-and-faculty-body-support.

[3] ����ֱ��, Adoptions of an Official Position of Institutional Neutrality, ����ֱ��, /research-learn/adoptions-official-position-institutional-neutrality.

[4] ����ֱ��, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2009: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses, ����ֱ�� (Dec. 15, 2008), /research-learn/spotlight-speech-codes-2009.

[5] ����ֱ��, Bias Response Team Report 2017, ����ֱ�� (Feb. 7, 2017), /research-learn/bias-response-team-report-2017.

[6] Greg Harold Greubel, Sixth Circuit Properly Finds That University of Michigan Bias Response Team Could Chill Students’ Speech, ����ֱ�� (Sept. 26, 2019), /news/sixth-circuit-properly-finds-university-michigan-bias-response-team-could-chill-students.

[7] Michael Hurley, Oklahoma Forms ‘Free Speech Committee’ to Guard Against Campus Censorship, ����ֱ�� (Apr. 22, 2022), /news/oklahoma-forms-free-speech-committee-guard-against-campus-censorship; Azhar Majeed & Josh Smith, Iowa Board of Regents, University of Iowa Faculty Commit to Free Speech and Academic Freedom, ����ֱ�� (May 9, 2019), /news/iowa-board-regents-university-iowa-faculty-commit-free-speech-and-academic-freedom.

[8] ����ֱ��, Letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, ����ֱ�� (Apr. 17, 2025), /sites/default/files/2025/04/����ֱ��%20Letter%20to%20Secretary%20of%20Education%20Linda%20McMahon%20April%2017%202025.pdf; Tyler Coward, As Compliance Deadline Looms, Colleges Must Resist Censorship — and the Feds Must Provide More Clarity, ����ֱ�� (Feb. 28, 2025), /news/compliance-deadline-looms-colleges-must-resist-censorship-and-feds-must-provide-more-clarity.

[9] Adam Steinbaugh, The Chilling Effect of Investigations, ����ֱ�� (May 11, 2016), /news/chilling-effect-investigations.

Appendices