Protecting free expression is essential on America’s college campuses — not only for educating students, but also for the strengthening of the nation.
That pitch for free speech in higher education anchored Utah Rep. Burgess Owens’ message at Wednesday’s congressional hearing focusing on the future of the First Amendment in postsecondary schools.
College campuses should be cultivators of respectful “intellectual diversity” — exposing students to ideas that they might not always agree with, said the Republican lawmaker, who chairs the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee.
“This mission,” he added, “is becoming a matter of urgency as students report increased intolerance to views that differ from their own.”
To begin Wednesday’s hearing, Owens cited polling from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, reporting that 59% of college students frequently self-censor around their peers.
Meanwhile, more than 71% believe it’s acceptable to “shout down” speakers to stop someone from speaking on campus — while 54% would accept blocking other students from attempting to attend a campus speech.
“And 34% believe using violence (at least in rare cases) to stop a speech is justified,” he said.
“We are creating a culture that accepts fear, bullying and cowardice as a culture — versus a bold confidence and debate of ideas.”
Such trends of intolerance have “serious implications” for higher education and the country, stated Owens, pointing to last weekend’s assassination attempt of President Donald Trump and last fall’s murder of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University.
America’s college students in both public and private schools, he noted, have free speech rights that must be protected.
Additionally, public universities must protect other First Amendment freedoms such as freedom of assembly and freedom from religious persecution.
“Yet these protections are not always upheld,” said Owens. “Students in certain religious, political and single-sex organizations are under attack — sometimes, unfortunately, by the same institutions whose mandate is to protect them.”
The subcommittee’s ranking member, Rep. Alma Adams, D-N.C., noted the complexity of the day’s hearing.
Most lawmakers likely support assertions that all students are entitled to their First Amendment and civil rights protections, she said. The First Amendment protects speech from government interference.
“But it is not absolute,” Adams said. “The courts have made clear that certain narrow categories of speech — like obscenity, defamation and fighting words — be restricted.”
And higher education institutions also have the legal obligations to ensure that students are not subjected to unlawful discrimination or hostile learning environments.
So balance is required in applying free expression and free opportunity, said Adams, while arguing that a “free speech crisis” on college campuses is not a systemic problem warranting congressional action.
“What’s more troubling is the inconsistency,” she said. “So if the concern is truly about viewpoint diversity — then we should protect all viewpoints, not just those that align with a particular political agenda.
“Yet many of the same voices raising these concerns have supported efforts to restrict what can be taught and discussed on campus, particularly regarding diversity, equity and inclusion.”
Adams added there have been attempts to ban courses, limit classroom discussion about race and inequality, and penalize institutions for “engaging in work that reflects the diversity of their students.”
Wednesday’s “Free Speech on Campus” hearing included several witnesses from a variety of higher education fields speaking on First Amendment challenges on college campuses.
Tyson Langhofer from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom said the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear the importance of college campuses being venues where free, unfettered interplay of competing views are protected.
“Now, unfortunately, most public universities are actively violating these freedoms,” said Langhofer.
Some schools, he noted, adopt policies censoring student speech by restricting such debates to small zones in outdoor areas of campus — or by adopting policies that punish speech that the school or other students subjectively label demeaning or uncivil.
“These policies are most commonly enforced against conservative and religious students to shut down speech that others disagree with,” said Langhofer in his testimony.
Jud Horras, the president of North American Interfraternity Conference, testified that universities such as Harvard single out single-sex organizations such as college male fraternities. Such actions, he said, violate freedom of association on college campuses.
Emerson Sykes of the American Civil Liberties Union echoed Langhofer’s assertion that the country’s highest court has recognized the essentiality of freedom in America’s college campuses.
“We’ve seen free speech and academic freedom rights challenged on college campuses across the country,” Sykes testified. “While the details of campus speech jurisprudence can get murky, one thing is clear: the government cannot censor students, instructors or even visitors just because the government doesn’t like the ideas they express.”
The principle of viewpoint neutrality when regulating campus speech, he added, is paramount.
In recent years, said Sykes, there have been “unprecedented efforts” by state and federal officials to regulate what ideas can be taught in public colleges.
“Traditionally, academic freedom has served to protect individual professors from censorship, as well as to protect the university from interference by courts and the political branches of government,” he said. “This traditional understanding of academic freedom is under severe threat from all sides.”
Campus speech controversies are as old as the campuses themselves, added Sykes. But the pervasiveness of social media has added a new layer to such divisions.
“When students or professors share controversial or offensive views online, universities must decide whether to act,” said Sykes.
“The ACLU has always stood for the principle that we need clear and fair First Amendment rules that apply to all — regardless of viewpoint — as we’ve seen recent examples of students being punished for all kinds of views online.”
Sykes said much can be done to help safeguard academic freedom in higher education — including vigilance against censorship from local school boards and state legislatures.
Congress, he added, should refrain from misusing investigative authority to intimidate universities. “And more importantly, stop trying to commandeer fundamental curricular and research decisions of universities by imposing ideological restrictions by legislation, including funding cutoffs.”
Steven McGuire directs the American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s campus freedom initiative that encourages colleges to build cultures of free expression and intellectual diversity.
The nation’s higher education institutions, he said, should be oases for free inquiry and debate. Instead, “many schools have become bastions of intolerance — dominated by ideological monocultures instilling fear that anyone who dares to stray from accepted dogmas will be punished and ostracized.”
McGuire said self-censorship atmospheres have become pervasive among students and faculty. They fear being canceled.
He encouraged universities to articulate policies protecting freedom of expression on campus — and include academic freedom in their mission statements and core values.
“Institutions should promote intellectual diversity and ensure that faculty hiring and promotions are free of ideological barriers,” said McGuire.
During Wednesday’s subcommittee meeting, lawmakers posed several questions to the witnesses.
Owens asked why both Congress and everyday Americans should be concerned that young people are becoming increasingly intolerant and aggressive to ideas different from their own.
Langhofer responded saying that a recent survey suggested Americans with graduate degrees are almost twice as likely as those with high school diplomas to support political violence.
Langhofer responded saying that a recent survey suggested Americans with graduate degrees are almost twice as likely as those with high school diplomas to support political violence.
“That shows us that individuals that are the most educated are the least likely to actually use reason and logic to engage in political discourse — rather, they are willing to engage in violence,” he said.
A lack of intellectual diversity creates echo chambers, added Langhofer. “Uniformity of thought breeds intolerance of disagreement.”
Adams asserted there are “real efforts” to limit speech on college campuses through curriculum restrictions, funding pressure and policies that may chill faculty voices.
“When students and faculty say they are self-censoring, that should concern all of us,” she said. “A campus where people are afraid to speak is not a place of learning. It’s a place of silence.”
Adams asked Sykes from the ACLU about how colleges can best draw clear lines between teaching controversial ideas — and engaging in conduct outside the bounds of a learning environment.
In areas of scholarship and research, professors should be empowered to explore things that might be uncomfortable, answered Sykes. “We need our researchers not to be confined by the current understanding of any particular issue — never mind the current administration.
Owens concluded Wednesday’s hearing by saying that the country has long been defined by difficult conversations, conducted respectfully.
But today, he said, many students are graduating from colleges with both degrees and intolerance.
“That has to come to an end … we’re not going to be tolerant of intolerance,” said Owens.
“We’re going to start teaching our kids how to think again. How to have these conversations and to be different — but yet have that thing in common that keeps us as good Americans.”
This piece was originally published by Deseret News on April 29, 2026.
PodcastsInstitutional Neutrality
In this episode of Radio Free Campus, co-hosts Steve McGuire and Justin Garrison analyze a new policy on teaching controversial topics in the University of Texas System. The podcast hosts also discuss what a new survey from Gallup/Lumina reveals about student free speech experiences on their campuses. Steve and Justin also debate an article from Inside Higher Ed that provides a Rawlsian defense of institutional neutrality. The show hosts also announce the University of Wyoming as this episode’s “Hero of the People” and a professor from Stanford University as RFC’s “Apparatchik of the Month.”
Launched in 1995, we are the only organization that works with alumni, donors, trustees, and education leaders across the United States to support liberal arts education, uphold high academic standards, safeguard the free exchange of ideas on campus, and ensure that the next generation receives an intellectually rich, high-quality college education at an affordable price.
Discover MoreSign up to receive updates on the most pressing issues facing our college campuses.