Here are the schools getting free speech right (and wrong)
A first-look at FIRE’s 2026 Speech Code Ratings in the post-language-policing era.
Today’s newsletter is free for all subscribers.
Post-COVID, dialogue around freedom of speech has changed. And campuses, a historic breeding ground for debate over speech, have once again entered the spotlight in a conversation about the first amendment.
In the past few years alone, we’ve witnessed:
Intense campus protests over Israel, Gaza, and conflict in the Middle East
Mixed with Trump-era threats and, actual cuts, to federal funding for higher education, as institutions grapple with legitimate pushback to political bias and ideological homogeneity on their campuses
A vibrant counter-cultural movement to political correctness led by young men in particular and “the death of wokeness”
The rise in tolerance of political violence and the public assassination of Charlie Kirk — who was speaking on a college campus when he was killed
And, overall, a renewed emphasis on freedom of speech, and diversity of opinion, as a priority issue for young voters
That sets the scene for a new set of ‘Speech Code Ratings’ from FIRE, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which provides a singular database to track campus free speech policies in the United States. FIRE’s 20th Spotlight on Speech Codes was released today and shared first with The Up and Up.
You can read the full report, along with their methodology, here.
The ratings identify schools as “green light,” “yellow light,” or “red light” according to “how much First Amendment-protected speech is restricted” — and this year, the number of “red light” schools hit a record low. To top that off, forty-seven schools have embraced “institutional neutrality,” i.e. a policy whereby an institution does not take positions on issues not directly related to the school, made famous by the 1967 Kalven Report at the University of Chicago.
Shifting ratings. This year, The University of Alabama, University of California, Davis, and University of West Florida joined the ranks on the “green light” list. While Bard College, Tulane University, and the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry moved down a peg from yellow to red. Ten schools, including Colgate, University of Washington, and Western Michigan University, moved from red to yellow.
The renewed emphasis on freedom of speech — both from fed-up students who spent years walking on egg shells in fear of saying the wrong thing and pissing off the wrong people and frustrated campus administrators, faculty members, parents, alumni, trustees, and donors — has, in fact, prompted schools to move in the direction of protecting students’ speech.
According to FIRE’s report, this year, there were a “record low” of “red light” campuses, i.e. “schools whose policies restrict free expression.”
“We’re seeing major improvements in campus policymaking, and campuses that were once hotbeds of censorship are overhauling problematic policies,” said FIRE’s Senior Program Counsel Ryan Ansloan, who wrote the report. “Pressure from many state legislatures, as well as the reelection of Donald Trump and subsequent federal investigations, lawsuits, and shifts in research funding, have prompted internal review at many schools. We hope this will translate to taking the side of free speech when controversies arise.”
What we’re seeing. One of the biggest shifts we’ve tracked in Gen Z’s politics is their collective emphasis on freedom of speech — which dovetails with universities’ shifting speech policies.
While older Gen Zers — Gen Z 1.0 — were raised on political correctness, younger Gen Zers — Gen Z 2.0 — have largely rejected the policing of language.
This tracks with other traits of Gen Z 2.0 — who grew resentful of authority during and after COVID, years of lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, and the intensity of movements such #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and the aftermath of October 7th on college campuses.
And what we’re hearing.
Since the 2024 election, free speech has become a top issue raised by Gen Z voters in our focus groups — so much so that “campus free speech clubs” were actually on our list of INs for 2025.
Fast forward, after President Donald Trump took office for the second time in 2025 we had a young voter share that free speech is the most underrated political issue for Gen Z — and, personally, the issue where she saw the biggest initial disappointment from the current administration.
“It’s been the biggest disappointment,” a 20-year-old young woman who voted for Trump shared at the time, “that this administration has not been friendly to free speech. And I kind of feel like people, when it comes to free speech, are getting tired because neither side is embracing a principled position on it.”
Last fall, the assassination of Charlie Kirk only magnified an already robust conversation about the responsibility of schools to adopt policies that encourage debate and dialogue — rather than suppress it. In a September 2025 listening session just weeks after he was killed, students from across the country advocated for urgent campus policies to increase dialogue across partisan divides, which is only possible in an environment where free speech is embraced.
The stakes.
Campus culture and policies around speech impact more than just the students already enrolled at the institution. According to The Up and Up’s Emilia Kim, a rising sophomore at Johns Hopkins, schools’ stances on speech actually impacted her college-decision making process.
“The ability to freely speak out on my college campus, especially with other students, was an important factor. I wanted to know that I could make my voice heard without fear,” she said.
Having grown up amid hyper-caution, wary to do or say the wrong thing, it’s evident that the younger half of Gen Z is acutely aware of the consequences of a lack of free speech and firmly asking their leaders and institutions to move in the other direction.
This reminds me deeply of my time at UT after the Israel/Gaza strikes broke out, which led to the unveiling of the true power and colors of the university's stance on our freedom of speech.