U.S. Higher Education Faces Growing Indirect Threats, Report Warns

Rising Concerns Over Free Speech on College Campuses

Colleges across the United States are facing a growing challenge to free speech, with many institutions reaching what some describe as a “freezing point” for open dialogue. This trend is being driven by an increasing number of state legislatures enacting laws that aim to control university curricula, governance structures, and academic freedom. A recent report from PEN America highlights the scope of this issue, detailing how these legislative actions are shaping the educational landscape in ways that threaten the principles of free expression.

The report, authored by Amy Reid, senior program manager at PEN America, outlines the efforts of lawmakers to restrict what can be taught and discussed in classrooms. According to Reid, these laws are the result of years of deliberate strategy aimed at making censorship on college campuses a tangible goal. The cumulative impact of these policies, she argues, has created a chilling effect on speech, where students, faculty, and staff feel they must carefully monitor their words and interactions.

Legislative Actions Across the Country

By June 30 of this year, legislative bodies in 26 states had introduced over 70 bills aimed at limiting higher education, with 22 of them signed into law across 16 states. This marks a significant increase in the number of states implementing such measures. In fact, six new states—Kansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky, and Arkansas—enacted legislation under this category for the first time this year. Since 2021, a total of 21 states have passed similar laws.

These laws fall into two categories: direct “educational gag orders” and more indirect restrictions. Educational gag orders are designed to explicitly limit what topics can be taught in classrooms. For example, in Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming, legislation has been passed that restricts discussions on race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin. Similarly, Arkansas added provisions that prohibit teaching ideas or beliefs that violate the Civil Rights Act.

In Ohio, a law was enacted that bars public college faculty from expressing support or opposition for “controversial beliefs or policies.” It also requires faculty to encourage students to form their own opinions on these topics. Such measures, according to Reid, fundamentally undermine the principle of free expression and risk creating an environment where certain ideas are promoted while others are silenced.

Iowa’s New Legislation

Iowa is among the states taking steps that affect higher education. Three bills signed into law this session were identified by PEN America as targeting academic freedom. These include legislation that prevents accrediting agencies from penalizing universities for following state law, restrictions on state agencies and community colleges from having diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices or officers, and the establishment of a Center for Intellectual Freedom at the University of Iowa.

The center’s director will be selected by an advisory board, with only one member allowed to be a university employee. The director will answer to the Iowa Board of Regents and hold sole authority over hiring decisions, speaker invitations, and other key academic functions. Supporters of these bills argue that DEI programs divide rather than unite, and that such measures promote intellectual diversity and prevent colleges from taking controversial stances.

Sen. Ken Rozenboom, R-Oskaloosa, stated during a legislative session that the bill restricting DEI offices addresses a necessary issue. He argued that it is not appropriate for state entities to promote ideologies as part of their official roles.

Indirect Threats to Free Expression

Reid also expressed concern about legislation that takes a more subtle approach to limiting free speech. These include actions against accrediting bodies and changes to institutional authority structures, which shift decision-making power away from those directly involved in academic work and place it in the hands of external actors.

While federal actions, such as changes to research funding, have drawn attention, Reid emphasized that the focus of the report is to highlight the less visible but equally damaging impact of state-level policies. These laws, once enacted, continue to shape campus environments long after they are passed.

To combat these trends, Reid suggests that standing up against harmful legislation is essential. She compares the situation to dealing with bullies, noting that people must take action to stop them. By drawing attention to these issues, organizations like PEN America aim to ensure that the damage caused by these policies is not overlooked, even as attention is focused on larger federal concerns.