The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has released a set of rankings with regard to free speech on college campuses across America each year since 2020. The 2025 rankings are based on the survey of 58,807 students from 257 colleges and universities from January 25 through June 17, 2024, by College Pulse. Unique to this year’s survey were questions regarding freedom of speech in the wake of college protests and encampments in support of Palestine. A separate survey on the encampments was also sent to thirty colleges. As a result, a variety of useful information about how current events impact the state of free speech came from this year’s survey. 

UIC came out 77th overall out of the 251 colleges and universities included in the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings. In terms of comfort in expressing ideas and openness, UIC ranked 53rd and 45th, respectively. UIC’s scores on disruptive conduct and administrative support were significantly lower, coming in at 242nd and 226th, respectively. These results indicate that although UIC students tend to find campus a relatively accepting place for open discussion, many students do not feel supported by the administration when it comes to the issue of open expression. 

Additionally, UIC students are considerably accepting of disruptive behavior limiting others’ right to free speech. Concerningly, 76% of UIC student survey respondents indicated there are at least some cases where shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable. 41% say the same about using violence. Although at first glance, these statistics indicate worrisome student support for the suppression of free speech, it is important to consider how we have gotten to a place where such violations are widely regarded as acceptable. In recent years, tensions have risen between the student body and administration due to the handling of certain issues. Last January, a student was arrested during class and placed in a holding cell after she was seen writing messages in support of Palestine on campus property. Additionally, members of student groups, such as Student for Justine in Palestine (SJP) have reported having their flyers taken down in campus buildings. The response from the university to some students attempting to voice concerns about global issues has been at minimum, overreach, and in some of the worst cases, an abridgement of the student right to free speech. This has only furthered a campus culture where students feel the need to use drastic measures to be heard. The outcomes of the survey point to an opportunity for UIC administration to improve how they actively support students’ right to free speech. This includes speaking out against actions that suppress free speech, like using violence or shouting down a speaker, actively promoting open expression by outlining how students are allowed to protest and voice concern, and widening these guidelines instead of making them stricter. 

At a webinar held by FIRE back in September on the College Free Speech rankings, panelists discussed general trends as well as recommendations for how universities can seek to improve their ranking. One notable issue discussed during the webinar was that each year, the percentage of people who believe disruptive conduct – such as shouting down a speaker, blocking entry, and violence – is acceptable continues to increase. Regardless of the views held by an individual, attempting to prohibit their ability to speak as an act of protest against their ideas is a violation of free speech. It is important to acknowledge that there are certain circumstances, such as in the case of an individual spewing hate speech, in which attempting to nonviolently suppress them may be justifiable. With that exception in mind, it remains concerning that more and more students find disruptive conduct acceptable. 

This trend likely points to a growing climate of divisiveness and political polarization. Political issues are no longer just political issues. To many of us, they feel deeply personal. For instance, given the way many Palestinian Americans have been personally affected by the destruction of Gaza, the fact that some prominent figures seek to deny the identities of those who are LGBTQ+, or the way many refuse to believe in the existence of systemic racism, the increase in large-scale protests, encampments, and other demonstrations in recent years is not necessarily surprising. These are the political issues of our time, and they have a profound impact on many of us. To promote open expression on campus while preventing disruptive conduct, universities should clearly delineate guidelines for free speech, an idea representatives from FIRE emphasized during the webinar. Universities should be clear about activities that are not permitted (e.g. shouting down or blocking a controversial speaker) while also being clear about how students are able to constructively protest. If students feel that these rules are discriminatory or overly restrictive, they should be able to raise concerns. Additionally, administrators should not only bring students into the conversation when working on modifying open expression policies but also heed their concerns and put effort into coming up with a solution that all parties are satisfied with as students are the majority group impacted by these regulations. 

I spoke with Sean Stevens, Chief Research Advisor at FIRE, to discuss the larger implications of the free speech rankings. Stevens holds a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and has been in social science research for two decades. When asked about trends across the rankings over the years, Stevens noted that the “difficult to discuss” score for racial equity has declined compared to how it was viewed in 2020 following the murder of George Floyd. 

However, the opposite is true for many contemporary issues. Abortion became more difficult to discuss after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, according to Stevens. Most notably, Israel-Palestine has the highest ever recorded score for a topic that’s difficult to discuss. A similar sentiment was noted by university professors as well, with a recent faculty survey hosted by FIRE finding that 87% of faculty nationwide struggled to have an open conversation about a controversial political issue. 70% pointed to Israel-Palestine as an example. 

These outcomes indicate that people are increasingly reluctant to have conversations about controversial political issues. It would seem as though these topics should become easier to discuss once they are pressing issues in the limelight, but the trend likely points to a growing fear society has developed of being targeted, attacked, or “canceled” for saying something perceived to be controversial. The fact that racial equity has become less difficult to discuss recently offers a glimmer of hope when it comes to this trend. Perhaps the sense of discomfort around these conversations dissipates over time as we are forced to engage in them in one way or another. Regardless, current events should not pose a threat to free speech but instead serve as an instigator of open conversation surrounding difficult-to-discuss issues. When conflict arises, we should seek to welcome the free expression of, with the exception of hate speech, all thoughts and opinions on the matter as knowledge and cultural awareness only flourish through open dialogue.

When I inquired about whether Stevens could make a determination on whether colleges are becoming better or worse at promoting free speech, he pointed to one promising sign: students with diverse sets of beliefs are now saying that they are concerned about free speech. Until the encampments, liberal students did not encompass a significant portion of those who seemed to care about free speech. Stevens noted that as more and more students have seen how free speech can be threatened, it is becoming more of a salient issue. 

“If you care about free speech on campus, that’s encouraging to me,” Stevens said. 

As we have seen over the course of the past few years, college students are some of the most emboldened, passionate individuals when it comes to advocating for the issues we care about. When students are concerned about free speech, there is much potential for positive change.