Pennsylvania universities pay lip service to campus free speech, yet self-censorship still persists

Like many universities, Penn State and the University of Pittsburgh are struggling to protect free expression, encourage a plurality of views and foster habits of civil discourse on their campuses.

Seemingly aware of the problem, Pitt announced a “Year of Discourse and Dialogue” in 2023-24 that has been extended to 2024-25. In 2024, both schools created new websites to make their policies on free speech easier to find. In the fall, Penn State President Neeli Bendapudi acknowledged, “If we were to forfeit free speech, we would defeat the very purpose of higher education.”

Despite these efforts, our research shows that students at both universities are suffering under the strain of self-censorship and intellectual intolerance. To fulfill their duties to students, faculty, alumni and Pennsylvania taxpayers, the leaders and trustees at these universities need to get serious about change.

Our organization, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), has spent 30 years promoting academic excellence, academic freedom and fiscal accountability in higher education. ACTA and College Pulse’s campus experience surveys at Pitt and Penn State discovered a number of alarming facts. Student self-censorship at both schools is rampant.

At Penn State, 56% of students are uncomfortable disagreeing with their professors on controversial topics. Sixty-two percent of students at Pitt feel the same way. Our data also show that self-censorship can become worse the longer students stay at these universities. Penn State seniors are twice as likely as freshmen to feel very uncomfortable expressing controversial ideas in class.

These levels of self-censorship are not surprising given that intolerance of different perspectives is also high at both schools. At Pitt, 70% of students think professors should be reported to the university if they make remarks students find offensive. Penn State is only slightly better on this issue, with 59% favoring reporting professors.

These problems do not affect all students equally. Conservative students at both schools are much more likely to self-censor than liberal students. At Penn State, 44% of conservatives often feel they cannot express themselves because of how others might react; only 24% of liberal students feel the same way. Ideology also shapes students’ willingness to disrupt events. Fifty-five percent of liberal students at Pitt believe shouting down a speaker is sometimes acceptable or always acceptable, compared to only 19% of conservative students.

That it is harder to be a conservative student than a liberal student at these universities is obvious, but this situation is bad for liberal students, too. When one group is reluctant to speak, and another group is reluctant to listen, nobody learns. Under such conditions, can Pitt Chancellor Joan Gabel truly say the university is “committed to creating an environment and a culture that contribute to a thriving democratic society”?

Both universities need to pursue transformational solutions for promoting free expression on their campuses. To start, they can join the growing ranks of universities adopting policies of institutional neutrality. Neutrality prohibits institutions from favoring or disfavoring opinions on the issues of the day. It thereby strengthens the freedom of students and faculty to engage in robust debate and criticism.

New programming is also necessary. At both universities, at least 80% of students report receiving no training in free speech policies. Pitt and Penn State should join the increasing number of schools that have begun incorporating debate and free speech training into their new student orientations.

Penn State and Pitt also need to change their approach to faculty hiring. Majorities of students at both universities want greater political diversity among professors, but Pitt and Penn State are heavily invested in using diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) criteria to hire faculty. MIT and Harvard have abandoned this practice, agreeing with the growing chorus of faculty who see it as akin to a political litmus test. With the federal government and various state houses taking action to limit or remove DEI policies, programs, and personnel in higher education, there is no better time for Pitt and Penn State to pivot toward merit-based hiring practices that will serve students better by generating a true diversity of perspectives. This will not be easy, given current (mis)understandings of shared governance and faculty hiring procedures.

If these two universities continue with business as usual, they will succeed only in prolonging a state of affairs that students clearly do not want or deserve. Pitt and Penn State owe it to their university communities and to Pennsylvania citizens to chart a different and better course. Now is the time to begin.

This article was first published by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on February 3, 2025.