recent research reports

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

Bumblebees lose most of their sense of smell after heat waves

A few hours in high temps reduced the ability of antennae to detect flower scents by 80 percent. That could impact the bees’ ability to find food.

50 years ago, some of plastic’s toxic hazards were exposed

A new drug shows promise for hot flashes due to menopause

A next-gen pain drug shows promise, but chronic sufferers need more options

In an epic cosmology clash, rival scientists begin to find common ground 

A nuclear clock prototype hints at ultraprecise timekeeping 

Fiddler crabs are migrating north to cooler waters

Trending stories.

Geoscientists found the most dangerous part of a famous West Coast fault

Despite new clues, this ancient fish has stumped scientists for centuries

Spotlight on Health

A new painkiller nearing approval called suzetrigine may prove to be an opioid alternative. But for many with chronic pain, treatment must go beyond pills.

What is ‘Stage 0’ breast cancer and how is it treated?

From the archives.

Animal Virus Used on Cancer Patients

September 7, 1974 Vol. 106 No. #10

Science News Magazine

August 24, 2024 Vol. 206 No. 3

A newly approved ‘living drug’ could save more cancer patients’ lives

Nasa’s perseverance rover finds its first possible hint of ancient life on mars, paper cut physics pinpoints the most hazardous types of paper.

Featured Media

The crabs are climate migrants and could be a harbinger of changes to come as more species move in.

Here’s how an arthropod pulls off the world’s fastest backflip

National Geographic’s ‘OceanXplorers’ dives into the ocean’s mysteries

A risk-tolerant immune system may enable house sparrows’ wanderlust

A new element on the periodic table might be within reach 

Follow Science News

• Follow Science News on X
• Follow Science News on Facebook
• Follow Science News on Instagram

More Stories

Remote seamounts in the southeast Pacific may be home to 20 new species

This protist unfolds its ‘neck’ up to 30 times its body length to scout prey, the largest known genome belongs to a tiny fern.

World record speeds for two Olympics events have fallen over time. We can go faster

Does social status shape height, rain bosworth studies how deaf children experience the world.

Summer-like heat is scorching the Southern Hemisphere — in winter

Zapping sand to create rock could help curb coastal erosion, the world’s record-breaking hot streak has lasted 14 months. when will it end.

The nearest midsized black hole might instead be a horde of lightweights

A distant quasar may be zapping all galaxies around itself, some meteors leave trails lasting up to an hour. now we may know why.

Mayo is weirdly great for understanding nuclear fusion experiments

The world’s fastest microscope makes its debut, health & medicine.

People with food and other allergies have a new way to treat severe reactions

Extreme heat and rain are fueling rising cases of mosquito-borne diseases, 50 years ago, antibiotic resistant bacteria became a problem outside hospitals.

Mantle waves buoy continents upward and bedeck them with diamonds

‘turning to stone’ paints rocks as storytellers and mentors, why japan issued its first-ever mega-earthquake alert, science & society.

‘After 1177 B.C.’ describes how societies fared when the Bronze Age ended

Scientists are fixing flawed forensics that can lead to wrongful convictions, language models may miss signs of depression in black people’s facebook posts.

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Research News

• Subscribe to Health Newsletter

Can dogs understand the meaning of words? Scientists are trying to figure it out

September 6, 2024 • Last year, a dog named Bunny went viral on TikTok for pressing buttons with words on them to "communicate" with her owner. But can dogs even understand those words on a soundboard in the first place? A new study in the journal PLOS One seeks answers. Host Regina G. Barber and producer Rachel Carlson break down that story and more of the week's news with the help of All Things Considered's Ari Shapiro.

Aging and Alzheimer's leave the brain starved of energy. Now scientists think they've found a way to aid the brain's metabolism — in mice. PM Images/Getty Images hide caption

Shots - Health News

This metabolic brain boost revives memory in alzheimer’s mice.

September 2, 2024 • An experimental cancer drug that helps the brain turn glucose into energy was able to reverse memory loss in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease.

A drug that restores brain metabolism could help treat Alzheimer's

A squat lobster in the genus Sternostylus, thought to be a newly identified species, was photographed along the Nazca Ridge off the coast of Chile. ROV SuBastian/Schmidt Ocean Institute hide caption

A newly mapped underwater mountain could be home to 20 new species

August 30, 2024 • Researchers who led the 28-day expedition along the nearly 2-mile tall seamount hope the discoveries made will inform future policies safeguarding the understudied, high-seas region.

Corn rootworm is known as the 'billion dollar bug' for how much damage it causes to corn crops in the United States. Researcher Emily Bick is tackling the problem by eavesdropping on this and other insects. Lina Tran hide caption

How listening to the sounds of insects can help detect agricultural pests

August 30, 2024 • From Indonesia to Wisconsin, farmers all over the world struggle with a huge problem: pests. On top of that, it's tough for farmers to identify where exactly they have the pests and when. Reporter Lina Tran from NPR member station WUWM in Milwaukee joins host Emily Kwong to tell the story of how researchers in the Midwest are inventing new forms of pest detection that involve eavesdropping on the world of insects. Plus, hear what aphid slurping sounds like.

A white-browed sparrow weaver inspects a roost under construction, after just receiving some grass brought by another member of its group. Maria Cristina Tello-Ramos hide caption

When birds build nests, they're also building a culture

August 29, 2024 • Nest-building isn’t just instinct. Birds can learn from others, letting groups within one species develop their own distinctive nest-building traditions.

Shells, composed mostly of invasive zebra mussels pile up at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in Michigan. The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species Control and Prevention Act of 1990 and the United States Geological Survey's Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database were created in response to this mussel. corfoto/Getty Images hide caption

Here's what's missing from the invasive species narrative

August 28, 2024 • At first glance, the whole narrative of aquatic invasive species may seem straightforward: A bad non-native species comes into a new ecosystem and overruns good native species. But the truth? It's a little more complicated. To tear down everything we thought we knew about invasive species and construct a more nuanced picture, host Emily Kwong talks to experts Ian Pfingsten, who works on the United States Geological Survey's Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, and Nicholas Reo, a Canada Excellence Research Chair in Coastal Relationalities and Regeneration.

Many people get into their phones when they're bored, then scroll through social media in the hopes of alleviating that boredom. But new research suggests that swiping from video to video might increase boredom, not alleviate it. Tippapatt/Getty Images hide caption

Scrolling might make you MORE bored, not less

August 23, 2024 • Have you ever scrolled through a TikTok without finishing it? Switched between YouTube videos halfway through one or the other? Pressed "fast forward" on a Netflix episode that just wasn't holding your interest? That habit is called "digital switching" — and it might be causing the exact thing you're trying to avoid: boredom. Emily and Regina break that and more of the week's news down with the help of All Things Considered 's Ailsa Chang.

Invasive cane toads like this one have fanned out across Australia, killing numerous predators in their wake, including freshwater crocodiles. Joshua Prieto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images hide caption

To save wild crocodiles in Australia, scientists gave them food poisoning

August 16, 2024 • Freshwater crocodiles die every year in Australia from eating poisonous cane toads that humans introduced to the continent. Now scientists have found a way to teach the crocs to avoid the toxic toads.

Saving freshwater crocodiles — by teaching them to not eat poisonous toads

Conservation biologist Gliselle Marin carefully untangles a bat from a net in Belize during the annual Bat-a-thon. Her fanny pack is decorated with printed bats. Luis Echeverría for NPR hide caption

Goats and Soda

This scientist has a bat tat and earrings. she says there's a lot to learn from bats.

August 12, 2024 • Gliselle Marin joins the “Bat-a-thon,” a group of 80-some bat researchers who converge on Belize each year to study these winged mammals.

A scientist in Belize hopes bats can galvanize locals to protect their forests

Researchers glued cameras and tracking instruments to small pieces of neoprene, that they then glued to the fur of the sea lions Nathan Angelakis hide caption

Scientists attach video cameras to sea lions to map the ocean floor

August 9, 2024 • How do you study unmapped areas of the ocean and identify critical habitat for an endangered species? You include the study animal in the scientific process! Researchers from the University of Adelaide fitted endangered Australian sea lions with cameras and tracking devices to better understand where they spent their time. The information could help scientists protect critical sea lion habitat and could give researchers a new tool for mapping the ocean.

"Everything that we are as human beings is in our brain," Dr. Theodore Schwartz says. Brian Marcus /Penguin Randomhouse hide caption

Health Care

For this brain surgeon, the operating room is 'the ultimate in mindful meditation'.

August 5, 2024 • Dr. Theodore Schwartz has been treating neurological illnesses for nearly 30 years. He says being a brain surgeon requires steady hands — and a strong bladder. His new book is Gray Matters.

New blood tests that help detect Alzheimer's disease are opening up a new era in diagnosis and treatment, doctors say. Marcus Brandt/picture alliance/Getty Images hide caption

New blood tests can help diagnose Alzheimer's. Are doctors ready for what's next?

August 2, 2024 • A new generation of blood tests can help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease. But many doctors don’t yet know how to use them.

Alzheimer's blood tests

Some researchers say the African coral tree has a racial slur embedded in its name. This month, scientists at an international meeting voted to have that epithet removed. tree-species/Flickr hide caption

Some plant names can be racist. Scientists are looking to rename them

July 31, 2024 • An international group of researchers has voted to modify the scientific names of more than 200 plant species whose names carry a derogatory word.

Researchers are revising botanical names to address troubling connotations

A key protein called Reelin may help stave off Alzheimer's disease, according to a growing body of research. GSO Images/The Image Bank/Getty Images hide caption

A protein called Reelin keeps popping up in brains that resist aging and Alzheimer’s

July 29, 2024 • Early in life, the protein Reelin helps assemble the brain. Later on, it appears to protect the organ from Alzheimer’s and other threats to memory and thinking.

Alzheimer's resilience

There are over eight hundred species of leeches, but researchers estimate that only ten percent of all leeches are terrestrial. Auscape/Contributor/Getty Images hide caption

We hate to tell you this, but there are leeches that can jump

July 29, 2024 • Generally, we at Short Wave are open-minded to the creepies and the crawlies, but even we must admit that leeches are already the stuff of nightmares. They lurk in water. They drink blood. There are over 800 different species of them. And now, as scientists have confirmed ... at least some of them can jump!

Two chimpanzees groom each other — a behavior that can involve several gestures. Anup Shah/Getty Images hide caption

What chimpanzee gestures reveal about human communication

July 26, 2024 • Chimpanzees are humans' closest living relatives. But does much of their communication resembles ours? According to a new study published earlier this week in the journal Current Biology , chimpanzees gesture back-and-forth in a similar way to how humans take turns speaking. The research presents an intriguing possibility that this style of communication may have evolved before humans split off from great apes, and tells researchers more about how turn-taking evolved.

Project RattleCam lets people observe rattlesnakes with a live webcam. Scott Boback hide caption

Watch a livestream of Colorado’s ‘mega den’ of pregnant rattlesnakes

July 24, 2024 • On a rocky hillside in Colorado is a “mega den” of hundreds of rattlesnakes — along with cameras livestreaming the whole thing.

 Pregnant Rattlesnakes Webcam

Glyptodonts were giant, armadillo-like shelled mammals that went extinct about 10,000 years ago. A study reveals that cut marks on a glyptodont fossil in South America could have been made by humans a little over 20,000 years ago. Daniel Eskridge/Stocktrek Images/Science Source hide caption

When did humans get to South America? This giant shelled mammal fossil may hold clues

July 23, 2024 • A fossil of an armadillo-like mammal appears to bear cut marks from butchering by humans, suggesting people were living in South America at least 20,000 years ago, even earlier than once thought.

Ancient Armadillos

Once completed, India's National River Linking Project will transfer an estimated 200 billion cubic meters of water around the country each year. STRDEL / Stringer/Getty Images hide caption

India's plan to reroute rivers could have unintended consequences on rainfall

July 19, 2024 • More than a hundred years ago, a British engineer proposed linking two rivers in India to better irrigate the area and cheaply move goods. The link never happened, but the idea survived. Today, due to extreme flooding in some parts of the country mirrored by debilitating drought in others, India's National Water Development Agency plans to dig thirty links between rivers across the country. It's the largest project of its kind and will take decades to complete. But scientists are worried what moving that much water could do to the land, the people — and even the weather. Host Emily Kwong talks to journalist Sushmita Pathak about her recent story on the project.

In 2022, a large, unexpected rogue wave struck the Viking Polaris, breaking windows. One passenger died and others were injured. Alexis Delisi/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

Rogue waves can strike without warning. These scientists found a way to predict them

July 18, 2024 • Scientists have created a new tool that can give 5 minutes advance warning of a dangerous rogue wave in the ocean.

A study finds that psilocybin can desynchronize networks in the brain, potentially enhancing its plasticity. Sara Moser/Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis hide caption

A scientist took a psychedelic drug — and watched his own brain 'fall apart'

July 18, 2024 • Scientists scanned the brains of people who took psilocybin, including a member of the research team. The scans showed how the drug disrupts key networks, potentially enhancing brain plasticity.

A prominent brain scientist took psilocybin as part of his own brain study

Crows can be trained to count out loud much in the way that human toddlers do, a study finds. Andreas Nieder/Universal Images Group Editorial hide caption

Crows can count out loud like human toddlers — when they aren't cheating the test

July 18, 2024 • A study finds that carrion crows can be taught to count and make vocalizations that indicate the number counted, much in the same way that human toddlers do.

Crows can count vocally like toddlers, research shows

Science News

Star-packed Triangulum Galaxy shines in new Hubble Telescope image

By Samantha Mathewson published 7 September 24

The Triangulum Galaxy, the third-largest member of the Local Group of galaxies, is shining with star formation in a new image from the Hubble Space Telescope.

Scientists make lab-grown black hole jets

By Keith Cooper published 7 September 24

By using protons to probe how a magnetic field responds to an expanding plasma, experimenters have replicated the particle jets spewed out by active black holes.

Giant oarfish: The 'doomsday' fish of legend that supposedly foreshadows earthquakes

By Melissa Hobson published 7 September 24

In mythology, giant oarfish are said to foreshadow earthquakes, although evidence shows this is not the case.

Why doesn't stainless steel rust?

By Tom Metcalfe published 7 September 24

The special chemistry of this shiny iron alloy creates a protective layer on its surface that prevents it from rusting.

'Sensational discovery' of 2,000-year-old Roman military camp found hidden in the Swiss Alps

By Jennifer Nalewicki published 6 September 24

Researchers used lasers to find the Roman military camp, which was "strategically" located overlooking a battleground.

New tick-borne virus discovered in China can affect the brain, scientists report

By Nicoletta Lanese published 6 September 24

Scientists present evidence of a newly discovered tick-borne virus that can infect humans and potentially invade the brain, in some cases.

Watch Live: Boeing Starliner is about to return to Earth without its crew

By Brandon Specktor published 6 September 24

Boeing's Starliner spacecraft will return to Earth today after undocking from the International Space Station without its crew. A livestream of the mission begins at 5:45 p.m. ET.

Anthrax has killed over 50 animals in Wyoming — what's the risk to people?

By Emily Cooke published 6 September 24

At least 50 animals, including cattle and one moose, in Wyoming have died during a recent outbreak of anthrax. However, officials say the current risk to humans is small.

Pollution harms men's fertility, but traffic noise affects women's

By Amy L. Winship, Mark Green published 6 September 24

The large-scale study linked exposure to air pollution with a higher infertility risk in men, while traffic noise affected women

Asteroid 10 times bigger than the dinosaur-killing space rock smashed Jupiter's largest moon off its axis

By Harry Baker published 6 September 24

New simulations show that Jupiter's massive moon Ganymede was knocked off its axis when it was struck by a roughly 90-mile-wide asteroid around 4 billion years ago. The colossal collision was likely one of the biggest asteroid impacts the solar system has ever seen.

Lowest ever price — save over $400 on one of our favorite cameras at Adorama

By Kimberley Lane published 6 September 24

Deals The Sony A7 IV is a fantastic all-rounder that produces stunning stills and video, and we think it's one of the best astrophotography cameras — now $2,098.

Stone Age burial ground in France used for 800 years is nearly all male — and ancient DNA reveals they're largely related

DNA analyses of human remains found at the site revealed that the majority of the male individuals buried there shared a paternal link.

The oldest evidence of Earth's atmosphere may be hiding in rocks on the moon

By Stephanie Pappas published 6 September 24

The moon hasn't had a magnetic field for 4.36 billion years. That means it could hold fragments of the ancient Earth.

Sexually frustrated dolphin behind spate of attacks on humans off Japan

By Patrick Pester published 6 September 24

A stock image of an Indo-Pacific dolphin swimming (not the individual responsible for the recent attacks).

White Shark Café: The mysterious meeting spot for great whites in the middle of the Pacific Ocean

By Sascha Pare published 6 September 24

Every winter and spring, great white sharks that usually dwell off the coast of California gather in a remote section of ocean the size of Colorado — and scientists are slowly piecing together why.

Novel Chinese computing architecture 'inspired by human brain' can lead to AGI, scientists say

By Keumars Afifi-Sabet published 6 September 24

AGI could be on the horizon thanks to a novel computing architecture that completely redefines how artificial neurons form an intelligent system.

A particularly active 'aurora season' could be just weeks away

By Jamie Carter published 6 September 24

September could be a prime time to see vibrant auroras, thanks to a quirk of Earth's tilt that leads to more intense geomagnetic activity around the equinox.

1,700-year-old 'barbarian' burial discovered along Roman Empire's frontier in Germany

By Tom Metcalfe published 5 September 24

Archaeologists think the man was buried in the first half of the fourth century.

Scientists invent nanorobots that can repair brain aneurysms

By Stephanie Pappas published 5 September 24

Tiny robots much smaller than blood cells could deliver clot-forming drugs where they're needed most, a study in rabbits suggests. The tech has yet to be tested in humans.

Why do dogs' paws smell like Fritos?

By Jennifer Nalewicki published 5 September 24

Why do dogs' paws smell like corn chips? A veterinarian explains the cause of this olfactory offense.

• View Archive

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

• 2 Giant oarfish: The 'doomsday' fish of legend that supposedly foreshadows earthquakes
• 3 Why doesn't stainless steel rust?
• 4 'Sensational discovery' of 2,000-year-old Roman military camp found hidden in the Swiss Alps
• 5 New tick-borne virus discovered in China can affect the brain, scientists report

Browsing: Technology

Read the latest technology news on SciTechDaily, your comprehensive source for the latest breakthroughs, trends, and innovations shaping the world of technology. We bring you up-to-date insights on a wide array of topics, from cutting-edge advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics to the latest in green technologies, telecommunications, and more.

Our expertly curated content showcases the pioneering minds, revolutionary ideas, and transformative solutions that are driving the future of technology and its impact on our daily lives. Stay informed about the rapid evolution of the tech landscape, and join us as we explore the endless possibilities of the digital age.

Discover recent technology news articles on topics such as Nanotechnology ,  Artificial Intelligence , Biotechnology ,  Graphene , Green Tech , Battery Tech , Computer Tech , Engineering , and Fuel-cell Tech featuring research out of MIT , Cal Tech , Yale , Georgia Tech , Karlsruhe Tech , Vienna Tech , and Michigan Technological University . Discover the future of technology with SciTechDaily.

Unlocking Proton Power: MIT’s Game-Changing Discovery for Cleaner Energy

MIT engineers have discovered promising new materials that could revolutionize proton conduction and lead to…

Transforming the Power Grid With Superconducting Transmission Lines

VEIR, founded by MIT alumnus Tim Heidel, has developed technology that can move more power…

Unprecedented Air Stability: New Molecules Promise Longer Battery Life

New naphthalene derivatives improve the air stability and cycling performance of ORAMs in AOFBs, potentially…

How Technology Could Soon Turn Exercise Pain Into Pleasure

Could incorporating sensors that detect emotional responses improve commitment to VR exergaming, especially when workouts…

Innovative Silicon Chip Advances the Potential of 6G Communications

A group of researchers has developed a new polarization multiplexer, advancing the capabilities of 6G…

New Concrete Design That Mimics Nature Boosts Crack Resistance by 63%

Robotics and additive manufacturing lead to stronger concrete. Researchers at Princeton Engineering have enhanced the…

Scientists Develop New Molecular Strategies To Break the Barriers of Electronic Miniaturization

University of Illinois researchers have innovated in molecular electronics by creating stable, shape-persistent molecules with…

Nervous System’s Master Matchmaker Sparks Breakthrough in Computer Science

A researcher has enhanced the bipartite matching problem in computer science by drawing parallels with…

New Graphene Technology Could Revolutionize Battery Safety and Performance

Researchers have developed a scalable method for producing large graphene current collectors, significantly improving lithium-ion…

Memory Breakthrough: Helical Magnets Pave the Way for Next-Gen Storage

Researchers have developed a new magnet-based memory device using helical magnets, promising high-density, non-volatile storage…

Brighter Than Ever: Tiny Green Lasers Are Changing the Game

NIST scientists have made a breakthrough in laser technology by filling the “green gap” with…

Researchers Discover a Surprising Way To Jump-Start Battery Performance

A study conducted at the SLAC-Stanford Battery Center has found that charging lithium-ion batteries at…

Tiny Laser-Plasma Accelerator Breakthrough Could Revolutionize Scientific Research

Laser-plasma accelerators could revolutionize scientific research by providing compact, efficient particle acceleration. They are seen…

Finally Revealed: The Surprising Cause of Qubit Decay in Quantum Computers

Researchers at Aalto University have uncovered the thermal energy loss in qubits through a simple…

Revolutionary Eco-Friendly Cooling Device Shatters Performance World Record

HKUST’s new cooling device breaks world records with a 75 K temperature lift and a…

The Future of Fighting Disease: AI Detects Cancer and Viral Infections With Nanoscale Precision

Researchers have developed AINU, an AI that can differentiate between cancer and normal cells and…

Hydrogels Take On Pong: How They “Learn” To Win

Researchers have discovered that non-living hydrogels can play the video game Pong and improve over…

Turning Heat Into Custom Light With Advanced Nanotechnology

Researchers at the CUNY Graduate Center have made significant strides in manipulating the optical properties…

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Cannabis and hallucinogen use among adults remained at historic highs in 2023

Vaping among younger adults and binge drinking among mid-life adults also maintained historically high levels, NIH-supported study shows

Past-year use of cannabis and hallucinogens stayed at historically high levels in 2023 among adults aged 19 to 30 and 35 to 50, according to the latest findings  from the  Monitoring the Future survey . In contrast, past-year use of cigarettes remained at historically low levels in both adult groups. Past-month and daily alcohol use continued a decade-long decline among those 19 to 30 years old, with binge drinking reaching all-time lows. However, among 35- to 50-year-olds, the prevalence of binge drinking in 2023 increased from five and 10 years ago. The Monitoring the Future study is conducted by scientists at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, and is funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Reports of vaping nicotine or vaping cannabis in the past year among adults 19 to 30 rose over five years, and both trends remained at record highs in 2023. Among adults 35 to 50, the prevalences of nicotine vaping and of cannabis vaping stayed steady from the year before, with long-term (five and 10 year) trends not yet observable in this age group as this question was added to the survey for this age group in 2019.

For the first time in 2023, 19- to 30-year-old female respondents reported a higher prevalence of past-year cannabis use than male respondents in the same age group, reflecting a reversal of the gap between sexes. Conversely, male respondents 35 to 50 years old maintained a higher prevalence of past-year cannabis use than female respondents of the same age group, consistent with what’s been observed for the past decade.

“We have seen that people at different stages of adulthood are trending toward use of drugs like cannabis and psychedelics and away from tobacco cigarettes,” said Nora D. Volkow, M.D., director of NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). “These findings underscore the urgent need for rigorous research on the potential risks and benefits of cannabis and hallucinogens – especially as new products continue to emerge.”

Since 1975, the Monitoring the Future study has annually surveyed substance use behaviors and attitudes among a nationally representative sample of teens. A longitudinal panel study component of Monitoring the Future conducts follow-up surveys on a subset of these participants (now totaling approximately 20,000 people per year), collecting data from individuals every other year from ages 19 to 30 and every five years after the participants turn 30 to track their drug use through adulthood. Participants self-report their drug use behaviors across various time periods, including lifetime, past year (12 months), past month (30 days), and other use frequencies depending on the substance type. Data for the 2023 panel study were collected via online and paper surveys from April 2023 through October 2023.

Full data summaries and data tables showing the trends below, including breakdowns by substance, are available in the report . Key findings include:

Cannabis use in the past year and past month remained at historically high levels for both adult age groups in 2023. Among adults 19 to 30 years old, approximately 42% reported cannabis use in the past year, 29% in the past month, and 10% daily use (use on 20 or more occasions in the past 30 days). Among adults 35 to 50, reports of use reached 29%, 19%, and 8%, respectively. While these 2023 estimates are not statistically different from those of 2022, they do reflect five- and 10-year increases for both age groups.

Cannabis vaping in the past year and past month was reported by 22% and 14% of adults 19 to 30, respectively, and by 9% and 6% of adults 35 to 50 in 2023. For the younger group, these numbers represent all-time study highs and an increase from five years ago.

Nicotine vaping among adults 19 to 30 maintained historic highs in 2023. Reports of past-year and past-month vaping of nicotine reached 25% and 19%, respectively. These percentages represent an increase from five years ago, but not from one year ago. For adults 35 to 50, the prevalence of vaping nicotine remained steady from the year before (2022), with 7% and 5% reporting past-year and past-month use.

Hallucinogen use in the past year continued a five-year steep incline for both adult groups, reaching 9% for adults 19 to 30 and 4% for adults 35 to 50 in 2023. Types of hallucinogens reported by participants included LSD, mescaline, peyote, shrooms or psilocybin, and PCP.

Alcohol remains the most used substance reported among adults in the study. Past-year alcohol use among adults 19 to 30 has showed a slight upward trend over the past five years, with 84% reporting use in 2023. However, past month drinking (65%), daily drinking (4%), and binge drinking (27%) all remained at study lows in 2023 among adults 19 to 30. These numbers have decreased from 10 years ago. Past-month drinking and binge drinking (having five or more drinks in a row in the past two week period) decreased significantly from the year before for this age group (down from 68% for past month and 31% for binge drinking reported in 2022).

Around 84% of adults 35 to 50 reported past-year alcohol use in 2023, which has not significantly changed from the year before or the past five or 10 years. Past-month alcohol use and binge drinking have slightly increased over the past 10 years for this age group; in 2023, past-month alcohol use was at 69% and binge drinking was at 27%. Daily drinking has decreased in this group over the past five years and was at its lowest level ever recorded in 2023 (8%).

Additional data: In 2023, past-month cigarette smoking, past-year nonmedical use of prescription drugs, and past-year use of opioid medications (surveyed as “narcotics other than heroin”) maintained five- and 10-year declines for both adult groups. Among adults 19 to 30 years old, past-year use of stimulants (surveyed as “amphetamines”) has decreased for the past decade, whereas for adults 35 to 50, past-year stimulant use has been modestly increasing over 10 years. Additional data include drug use reported by college/non-college young adults and among various demographic subgroups, including sex and gender and race and ethnicity.

The 2023 survey year was the first time a cohort from the Monitoring the Future study reached 65 years of age; therefore, trends for the 55- to 65-year-old age group are not yet available.

“The data from 2023 did not show us many significant changes from the year before, but the power of surveys such as Monitoring the Future is to see the ebb and flow of various substance use trends over the longer term,” said Megan Patrick, Ph.D., of the University of Michigan and principal investigator of the Monitoring the Future panel study. “As more and more of our original cohorts – first recruited as teens – now enter later adulthood, we will be able to examine the patterns and effects of drug use throughout the life course. In the coming years, this study will provide crucial data on substance use trends and health consequences among older populations, when people may be entering retirement and other new chapters of their lives.”

View more information on data collection methods for the Monitoring the Future panel study and how the survey adjusts for the effects of potential exclusions in the report . Results from the related 2023 Monitoring the Future study of substance use behaviors and related attitudes among teens in the United States were released in December 2023, and 2024 results are upcoming in December 2024.

If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call or text 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org . To learn how to get support for mental health, drug or alcohol conditions visit  FindSupport.gov . If you are ready to locate a treatment facility or provider, you can go directly to  FindTreatment.gov or call  800-662-HELP (4357) .

About the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): NIDA is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most of the world’s research on the health aspects of drug use and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to inform policy, improve practice, and advance addiction science. For more information about NIDA and its programs, visit www.nida.nih.gov .

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov .

About substance use disorders: Substance use disorders are chronic, treatable conditions from which people can recover. In 2022, nearly 49 million people in the United States had at least one substance use disorder. Substance use disorders are defined in part by continued use of substances despite negative consequences. They are also relapsing conditions, in which periods of abstinence (not using substances) can be followed by a return to use. Stigma can make individuals with substance use disorders less likely to seek treatment. Using preferred language can help accurately report on substance use and addiction. View NIDA’s online guide .

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

Related Articles

Doctors reluctant to treat addiction most commonly report “lack of institutional support” as barrier

Reported drug use among adolescents continued to hold below pre-pandemic levels in 2023

Heart medication shows potential as treatment for alcohol use disorder

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Support for a U.S. TikTok ban continues to decline, and half of adults doubt it will happen

As public support for a TikTok ban continues to decline, many U.S. adults are skeptical or unsure such a ban will happen, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted July 15-Aug. 4, 2024.

The share of Americans who support the U.S. government banning TikTok now stands at 32%. That’s down from 38% in fall 2023 and 50% in March 2023.

Meanwhile, 28% of Americans oppose a ban, up from 22% in March 2023. And the share who say they are uncertain whether the government should ban the platform has risen from 28% in March 2023 to 39% now.

These findings come as TikTok’s fate in the United States continues to be uncertain. President Joe Biden signed a bill in April that requires ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, to sell it or face a ban in the U.S. Challenges to this law are now headed to the courts .

Below we’ll look more closely at:

• How Republicans and Democrats feel about a TikTok ban
• How TikTok users and nonusers feel about a ban
• How likely Americans think a ban is

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand Americans’ views about a potential TikTok ban in the United States. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,658 adults from July 15 to Aug. 4, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), a group of people recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses who have agreed to take surveys regularly. This kind of recruitment gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection. Surveys were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other factors. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis , the topline and the survey methodology .

Views of a TikTok ban by political party

Even amid the decline in support for banning TikTok, views remain divided by political party.

Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are far more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to support a ban (42% vs. 24%).

Still, support for a ban has dropped substantially within each party. In March 2023, 60% of Republicans and 43% of Democrats said they supported the government banning TikTok.

The partisan differences that persist today are also present in other questions we’ve asked about TikTok. For example, a May 2023 Center survey found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to view TikTok as a national security threat .

Views of a ban by use of TikTok

With U.S. adults’ use of TikTok on the rise , we’ve also been tracking how views of a ban differ depending on whether people use the platform. As was true in previous surveys, attitudes vary dramatically:

• TikTok users are far more likely to oppose (61%) than support (10%) a ban, with 29% unsure.
• Those who don’t use TikTok are about as likely to support a ban (42%) as to be uncertain (43%), while 15% are opposed.

Support for a ban has decreased within both groups between March 2023 and now. Among U.S. adults who don’t use TikTok, support has fallen sharply, from 60% in March 2023 to 42%. And among users, it’s fallen from 19% to 10% over that period.

At the same time, those who don’t use TikTok have become more uncertain about a ban.

Do Americans think a TikTok ban will happen?

For the first time, we measured public views on the likelihood of TikTok getting banned in the U.S. Americans are more likely to believe this will not happen than to think it will.

Half of Americans think it’s very or somewhat unlikely that TikTok will be banned in the U.S.

By contrast, 31% say a ban is at least somewhat likely, including 6% who believe it is very likely.

Another 19% say they are unsure whether TikTok will be banned.

Views by political party

Even as Republicans are more likely to support a ban, they’re just as likely as Democrats to doubt it will happen. About half of adults in each party say a ban is very or somewhat unlikely, while roughly three-in-ten say it’s very or somewhat likely.

Views by use of TikTok

There are only modest differences based on whether people use the platform. While 54% of U.S. adult TikTok users say it’s unlikely that the platform will be banned, 48% of nonusers say the same.

Views by attitudes toward a ban

Similar shares of Americans who support and who oppose a ban think it is unlikely to happen. In both groups, people are more skeptical than not:

• 54% of those who support a ban think it’s unlikely, 37% think it’s likely and 9% are unsure.
• 56% of those who oppose a ban think it’s unlikely, 31% say it’s likely and 13% are unsure.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis , the topline and the survey methodology .

• Platforms & Services
• Political Issues

Colleen McClain is a senior researcher focusing on internet and technology research at Pew Research Center .

Wyatt Dawson is a research associate focusing on internet and technology research at Pew Research Center .

About half of TikTok users under 30 say they use it to keep up with politics, news

How americans navigate politics on tiktok, x, facebook and instagram, how americans get news on tiktok, x, facebook and instagram, 6 facts about americans and tiktok, whatsapp and facebook dominate the social media landscape in middle-income nations, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Research & Learn

Table of Contents

2025 college free speech rankings.

Executive Summary

For the fifth year in a row, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit organization committed to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, and College Pulse surveyed college undergraduates about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.

This year’s survey includes 58,807 student respondents from 257 colleges and universities. Students who were enrolled in four-year degree programs were surveyed via the College Pulse mobile app and web portal from January 25 through June 17, 2024. 

The College Free Speech Rankings are available online and are presented in an interactive dashboard ( rankings.thefire.org ) that allows for easy comparison between institutions. 

Key findings:

• The University of Virginia is this year’s top ranked school for free speech. Michigan Technological University, Florida State University, Eastern Kentucky University, and Georgia Tech round out the top five.
• Harvard University is this year’s bottom ranked school for free speech for the second year in a row. Joining it in the bottom three are Columbia University and New York University. All three of these schools have an “Abysmal” speech climate. The University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College round out the bottom five and each has a “Very Poor” speech climate.
• All of the bottom five schools experienced a number of controversies involving the suppression of free expression. They also received significantly lower scores than the top five schools on “Administrative Support,” “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” and “Tolerance Difference,” which measures the strength of students’ favoritism when it comes to allowing liberal or conservative speakers on campus.
• Since 2020, UVA, Michigan Tech, FSU, North Carolina State University, Oregon State University, Mississippi State University, Auburn University, George Mason University, Kansas State University, the University of Mississippi, the University of Chicago, and Claremont McKenna College have all consistently performed well in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings.
• A majority of students (55%) said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to “have an open and honest conversation about on campus,” a record high for a topic on this question in the five years we have asked it. At least 75% of students on 17 of the campuses surveyed responded this way to this question.
• The percentages of students who said shouting down a speaker, blocking other students from entering an event, and using violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable all increased since last year. 
• A majority of students said that six of eight hypothetical controversial campus speakers should “probably” or “definitely” not be allowed on campus.
• Student concerns about self-censorship have declined. This year, 17% of students said they feel like they cannot express their opinion on a subject at least a couple of times a week because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. Last year, this percentage was 20%, and in 2022 it was 22%.

About College Pulse

College Pulse is a survey research and analytics company dedicated to understanding the attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of today’s college students. College Pulse delivers custom data-driven marketing and research solutions, utilizing its unique American College Student Panel™ that includes over 850,000 college students and recent alumni from more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and universities in all 50 states.

For more information, visit collegepulse.com or @CollegeInsights on X.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE also recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending these rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses.

For more information, visit thefire.org or @thefireorg on X.

Acknowledgments and Suggested Citation

Our gratitude goes to Sean Stevens for questionnaire design, developing the scoring methodology, data analysis, and authoring this report; and to Nathan Honeycutt for support with questionnaire design, developing the scoring methodology, data analysis, data validation, and editing. We would additionally like to thank Sam Abrams for help with questionnaire design and developing the scoring methodology; Keelyn M. Gallagher, Logan Dougherty, Angela C. Erickson, Komi Frey, Sigrid Fry-Revere, Emily Nayyer, and Ryne Weiss for support with data validation; and Khalia Abner and Jackson Fleagle for designing this report.

Greg Lukianoff

President and CEO, FIRE 

Suggested citation: 

Stevens, S.T. (2024). 2025 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2025-college-free-speech-rankings

In 2020, in collaboration with College Pulse and RealClearEducation, FIRE launched a first-of-its-kind tool to help high school students and their parents identify which colleges promote and protect the free exchange of ideas: the College Free Speech Rankings. The response to the rankings report and corresponding online tool was overwhelmingly positive. 

We heard from prospective students how helpful it is to see what a large number of current students reported about the campus climate for open discussion and inquiry, allowing for comparisons between colleges. We also heard from colleges and universities that the rankings helped them better understand their campus climate in order to improve it. Similarly, professors and staff became better equipped to understand which topics students on their campuses find difficult to discuss. 

Each year, we have increased the number of campuses surveyed — from 55 in 2020 to 257 this year. In these five years, we have obtained survey responses from more than 200,000 undergraduates, including 58,807 this year. As in previous years, the College Free Speech Rankings dashboard ( rankings.thefire.org ) is available on the College Pulse website and the FIRE website. The dashboard offers a unique tool to compare schools’ free speech rankings and to explore other factors that students find important in a college or university, such as cost and proximity to home.

2025 College Free Speech Rankings expose threats to First Amendment rights on campus

Press release.

University of Virginia takes the top spot, while Harvard, Columbia, and NYU share an “Abysmal” free speech status.

The rankings offer students, parents, professors, administrators, and any other interested constituency unrivaled insight into undergraduate attitudes about and experiences with free expression on their college campuses. It also allows viewers to compare different colleges’ culture for free expression. Prospective students and their parents, as well as students considering transferring to another college, can use the rankings to assess and compare the speech climates at the schools they are considering attending. Current college students, professors, and administrators can use the rankings to better understand their own campus climate and see how it compares to that of others across the country. 

The data examined in this report provide a wealth of information about college student attitudes about free speech and the state of free speech on campuses across America. Do students feel comfortable speaking out about topics about which they are passionate, even when they have a minority viewpoint, in the classroom or in common campus areas? Are they open to hearing from challenging and sometimes controversial speakers? Are they open to allowing speakers to visit campus without facing a heckler’s veto — or worse?

The body of this report sheds light on the answers to these questions, among others, and contains three sections: 

• First, it presents the core findings of the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings. 
• It then presents a deeper analysis of some of the campuses impacted by the encampments that students set up during the spring 2024 semester to protest Israel’s military response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack. 
• The final section of this report presents analyses of college students’ free speech attitudes and experiences. 

The analyses of the encampment protests are buttressed by an accompanying report detailing the results of a separate survey conducted on 30 campuses after the encampment protests began. This report was released in conjunction with this year’s rankings.

A lot has happened since FIRE released the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings last September. Most significantly, Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war in Gaza sent shockwaves through American college and university campuses. 

Campus deplatforming attempts occurred at record levels, and protesters attempted to disrupt events with increasing frequency — and succeeded with increasing regularity. [1] Students, student groups, and faculty who expressed pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian sentiment were targeted for sanction by their peers, administrators, and elected officials. [2] University presidents testified in front of the House of Representatives on matters related to speech and protest on campus, and some subsequently resigned. [3]

This past spring, students on campuses across the country set up encampments to protest Israel’s military operations in Gaza, demanding that colleges and universities divest from companies who work with Israel or its military. [4] Members of the general public have not looked fondly on these protests: Three-quarters of them said that students who participate in the encampments should be disciplined in some way. [5]

Given all of this, it is not surprising that American confidence in higher education is at a record low. [6]  

In response to the encampment protests, FIRE and College Pulse reopened this year’s rankings survey on any campus with an encampment. This allowed us to collect survey data from students while the encampments were taking place. [7] In comparing this data to data from the same campus before an encampment started, we were able to measure changes in the campus speech climate in real time. This means that this year’s rankings provide a treasure trove of data on the evolving state of free expression at American colleges and universities.

As you will see, a college’s scores often reflect its response to the events of the past year. 

The Best and Worst Colleges for Free Speech

This year the University of Virginia is the top ranked school for free speech with an overall score of 73.41. Michigan Technological University, last year’s top school, ranks second overall with a score of 73.15. Florida State University, last year’s fifth-place school, ranks third with a score of 72.46. Each of the top three schools have a “Good” speech climate and actively defended free expression during campus speech controversies — UVA and Michigan Tech did so on multiple occasions. None of the three schools have a perfect record, but their actions to uphold free speech contributed to their position in the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings. 

FIRE has surveyed and ranked all of the top three schools multiple times over the five years that we have conducted the rankings. They consistently perform well. We surveyed UVA all five years: It achieved a ranking of 6 (twice), 22, and 24 before earning the top spot this year. We surveyed FSU four times: It achieved a ranking of 5 (twice) and 15 prior to earning the third slot this year. We only surveyed Michigan Tech twice: It came in second place this year after being last year’s top school. 

Eastern Kentucky University, with a score of 69.60, and Georgia Institute of Technology, with a score of 69.39, round out the top five. Both schools have “Above Average” speech climates. Like Michigan Tech, EKU made its rankings debut last year and also did well with a ranking of 15. 

All of the top five schools are state universities. Their average score is 71.60.

At the other end of the rankings, Harvard University came in last for the second year in a row and again obtained the lowest score possible: 0.00. This year, however, Harvard has company. Columbia University ranks 250, also with an overall score of 0.00. [8] New York University, with a score of 3.33, ranks 249. All three of these schools have “Abysmal” speech climates. The University of Pennsylvania, with a score of 12.50, and Barnard College, with a score of 15.62, round out the bottom five. Both of these schools have a “Very Poor” speech climate. 

In the aftermath of Claudine Gay's resignation, here's how Harvard can reform itself

With the loss of its president, America’s worst college for free speech is at another crossroads.

All of the bottom five schools are private institutions. Their average score is 6.29.

Why do the schools in the bottom five do so poorly? For starters, they each experienced a number of controversies in which expression was censored, suppressed, or shouted down. For instance, since 2020 we documented 20 speech controversies at Harvard that resulted in a deplatforming, a scholar sanction, a student sanction, or an attempted disruption of an event. In the same time frame, we documented 14 such incidents at Columbia, 12 at NYU, 10 at Penn, and 7 at Barnard. These incidents collectively resulted in 13 deplatformings, nine attempted disruptions, 23 scholar sanctions, and 18 student sanctions. During the same time period, we documented only five instances of the bottom five schools vigorously defending free speech. [9]

In contrast, since 2020 the top five schools have issued a total of two scholar sanctions and two student sanctions. During the same time period, we documented no deplatformings or attempted disruptions and seven instances of a top-five school vigorously defending free speech.

The outcomes of these speech controversies may also help explain why the bottom five schools received some of the worst “Administrative Support” scores. On “Administrative Support,” NYU ranks 245, Columbia ranks 247, Harvard ranks 250, and Barnard ranks 251 — dead last. Barnard’s score on “Administrative Support” is almost two full standard deviations below that of Harvard, the second-worst performing school on this component. With a ranking of 219 on the same component, Penn does somewhat better than its bottom-five counterparts, but it still does not do well compared to most other schools on the list. The bottom five schools have an average “Administrative Support” ranking of 242, suggesting that students who attend these schools do not think their administration strongly supports freedom of speech.

The top five schools received considerably higher “Administrative Support” scores than the bottom five schools. [10] Michigan Tech does particularly well, ranking 15. The remaining top five schools’ rankings on this component range from 62 (EKU) to 124 (Georgia Tech). The top five schools have an average “Administrative Support” ranking of 75, and all five scored at least two standard deviations above the scores of four of the bottom five schools — Penn is the lone exception.

The top five schools also received considerably higher “Comfort Expressing Ideas” and “Tolerance Difference” scores than the bottom five schools. [11]  

When it comes to comfort, the top five schools have an average ranking of 111 — led by EKU at 37 and FSU at 44. The bottom five schools, however, have an average ranking of 227. On “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” the top ranked bottom-five school is NYU at 173. Columbia ranks 234, Harvard ranks 235, Penn ranks 245, and Barnard ranks second to last at 250. This indicates that students at the top five schools are significantly more comfortable than students at the bottom five schools expressing their views on controversial political topics on campus in different contexts — such as during a class discussion or during a conversation in the dining hall or lounge.

In terms of political tolerance, students at the bottom five schools are considerably more willing than students at the top five schools to allow controversial liberal speakers on campus. They are considerably less willing to allow controversial conservative speakers on campus. 

The bottom five schools have an average “Tolerance Difference” ranking of 183. Among the bottom five schools, Harvard received the highest “Tolerance Difference” ranking: 131. This ranking is better than that of one of the top five schools, UVA, which received a ranking of 150. However, the remaining bottom five schools all received rankings worse than 150. Penn ranks 172, NYU ranks 188, Columbia ranks 192, and Barnard ranks 232. 

In contrast, the top five schools have an average “Tolerance Difference” ranking of 70, and UVA is the only top-five school that does not rank in the top 100. Michigan Tech ranks 9, EKU ranks 33, FSU ranks 68, and Georgia Tech ranks 89. These findings suggest that students at the top five schools are more politically tolerant than their counterparts at the bottom five schools. This conclusion is further supported by the prevalence of speech suppression on the bottom five campuses — as evidenced by the number of deplatformings, attempted disruptions, sanctioned scholars, and sanctioned students.

In sum, some clear differences exist between the top five and the bottom five schools. The top five schools are reluctant to sanction expression during a speech controversy. As compared to students at the bottom five schools, students at the top five schools believe their administration is more supportive of freedom of speech, feel more comfortable expressing their views on controversial political topics on campus, and appear to exhibit less bias against campus speakers based on the speaker’s political views.

As noted, FIRE has surveyed UVA, Michigan Tech, FSU, and EKU multiple times, and they have each consistently performed well in the rankings. North Carolina State University, Oregon State University, Mississippi State University, Auburn University, George Mason University, Kansas State University, Claremont McKenna College, the University of Chicago, and the University of Mississippi have also performed well year after year. 

At the other end of the spectrum, Columbia, Harvard, and Penn have consistently performed poorly over the years. This list also includes Fordham University, Georgetown University, Marquette University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Texas at Austin. Harvard, Georgetown, and RPI have each received FIRE’s Lifetime Censorship Award. [12]  

The rankings, overall score, and speech climate of the top 25 colleges are presented below. Scores are standardized and can range from 0-100. 

The top 25 include 24 schools that received FIRE’s “green light” rating — and one, Northeastern Illinois University, that received FIRE’s “yellow light” rating — for their speech-related policies. The full rankings for all 257 schools and scoring methodology are available in the Appendix, as well as on the College Free Speech Rankings dashboard, the College Pulse website, and the FIRE website. [13]

Risers and Fallers

Each year some students graduate, others transfer, and a new cohort of students enrolls in college. This cohort replacement makes it possible for the speech climate on a campus to change quickly. This year a handful of schools noticeably rose in the rankings. Others precipitously fell. Below, we briefly review a handful of these schools and note the reasons for their rise or fall.

Claremont McKenna College:  After falling from the top 10 to 73 last year, Claremont McKenna — which, like Florida State, we have surveyed four times — returns to its familiar spot in the top 10 with a ranking of 6. 

Claremont McKenna’s performance this year is notable. It ranks:

• 1 on “Comfort Expressing Ideas.” 
• 3 on “Mean Tolerance,” 
• 7 on “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers.” 
• 8 on “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers.” 
• 9 on “Administrative Support.”
• 25 on “Self-Censorship.”
• 44 on “Openness.”

These scores suggest that students at Claremont McKenna are comfortable expressing their views on a number of controversial political topics and doing so in a number of different contexts on campus, that they tolerate controversial speakers on campus, and that they believe their administration is committed to the First Amendment. 

Claremont McKenna ranks 100 on “Disruptive Conduct” and 148 on “Tolerance Difference.” Its “Tolerance Difference” ranking suggests that even though most students at Claremont McKenna are tolerant of controversial speakers whether they are liberal or conservative, they are more likely to support allowing a controversial liberal speaker on campus.

University of Chicago:  UChicago took either the first or second spot in each of the first three years of the rankings. Last year, it dropped to a ranking of 13, largely due to the administration’s decision to deny official recognition to a Turning Point USA club because the members "hadn't proved that there was interest in the group" and the club would be "too similar to College Republicans." 

This year, UChicago’s ranking dropped again, this time to 43. This decline is primarily due to two incidents that occurred after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. In one instance, medical students attempted to disrupt a speaking event featuring the newly elected president of the American Medical Association. [14] In the other, students successfully disrupted an organized protest of the Hamas attack that was supposed to feature multiple speakers. [15]  

To UChicago’s credit, on both of these occasions students, not the administration, suppressed speech. The attempted disruption failed because university security escorted the protesters out of the event so that the speaker could complete his remarks successfully. And, in the aftermath of the disrupted event, the university president reiterated the school’s famous Chicago principles — a positive action that mitigated the penalty applied because of the disruption and which is reflected in the school’s rankings score. He stated: 

[N]o member of our community may shout down or seek to prevent the protected expression of those with whom they disagree. You may not tear down a poster. You may not seek to intimidate or threaten another person, or prevent them from hearing an invited speaker. These are egregious offenses against our community. [16]

University of South Carolina and Virginia Commonwealth University: Both of these schools ranked poorly last year. The University of South Carolina was third from the bottom at 246. Virginia Commonwealth University did better, but still not very well, with a ranking of 184. This year both schools made the top 50: VCU ranks 32, and the University of South Carolina ranks 34. 

One reason for their overall improvement is that both schools improved their score on “Comfort Expressing Ideas.” VCU moved from a ranking of 150 to a ranking of 108, and it ranks 18 on “Self-Censorship,” suggesting an improved campus speech climate. The University of South Carolina improved its “Comfort Expressing Ideas” ranking from 160 last year to 100 this year. It also improved considerably on “Administrative Support,” ranking 142 last year and 72 this year.

Another reason for these schools' improvement: Both schools worked directly with FIRE on revisions to their policies to earn a "green light" rating. The University of South Carolina adopted the “Chicago Statement” in June 2023 and revised four policies. VCU revised six. [17]

Syracuse University: In the first year of the rankings, Syracuse did poorly, ranking 51 of 55 schools. Over the next three years, it did better, ranking 38 of 154, 132 of  203, and 107 of 248. [18] This year however, Syracuse ranks 246, falling squarely in the bottom 10. 

Like Harvard University, Georgetown University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Syracuse University has received FIRE’s Lifetime Censorship Award. [19] So how did it receive a middling ranking most years? 

Last year, we penalized schools for enacting particularly severe sanctions on students for their speech: expulsion, rescinding acceptance, suspension, denying or revoking a student group’s recognition, or censoring a student newspaper. This year, we expanded the list of severe sanctions that could result in a penalty. We now also penalize schools for terminating a student employee, such as a resident assistant, from their campus job, censoring a student or student group, placing a student or student group under investigation for their expression, and mandating that a student undergo cultural competency or sensitivity training. We also penalize schools at which the student government sanctions a student or a student group for their expression.

We recorded seven student sanctions at Syracuse that impacted the school’s overall score: It suspended a student, censored multiple student groups, initiated four investigations of students, and required a student to participate in “Decision-Making” and “Conflict Coaching” workshops. Each of these incidents occurred in either 2022 or 2023. The suspension is the only incident that would have impacted Syracuse’s overall score last year. [20]  

Syracuse University’s decline in the College Free Speech Rankings is not solely due to an expanded universe of student sanctions. We also recorded three deplatformings, all of which occurred in 2023. All these recent incidents — the student sanctions and the 2022 and 2023 deplatformings — may have influenced student survey responses. Last year, Syracuse ranked 15 on “Openness,” 17 on “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” and 123 on “Administrative Support.” This year, it ranks 138, 109, and 157, respectively, on these components.

Barnard College: Barnard’s speech climate was radically altered after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel. A month after the attack, the college suspended student groups Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace and canceled an event the groups were co-sponsoring featuring Palestinian writer and poet Mohammed el-Kurd. [21]  

Earlier this year, protesters attempted to disrupt the incoming president’s inaugural speech and shouted over her as she began her remarks. On another occasion, administrators rejected a panel discussion, forcing student organizers at the last minute to move it off of Barnard’s campus to a location at Columbia University and livestream the event over Zoom. [22]  

The school also placed students under investigation for participating in an “unauthorized” protest and called students into an "administrative conduct meeting" for hanging a pro-Palestinian banner outside their dormitory windows during a campus protest, violating a policy prohibiting placing items outside windows. [23]

All of these incidents occurred after October 7.

Barnard also performed poorly on many of the survey-based components of the rankings, finishing in the bottom 15 on “Self-Censorship” (240), second-to-last on “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” and dead last on “Administrative Support.” As already mentioned, Barnard’s “Administrative Support” score is more than two standard deviations below the next-worst school, Harvard University. This suggests that students have noticed how their administration has responded to expression it dislikes.

Warning Colleges

Hillsdale College, with an overall score of 46.73 of 100, outperformed all of the other “Warning” schools in the rankings by at least 10 points. The overall scores of the other five Warning schools range from 17.49 (Saint Louis University) to 34.91 (Liberty University). The table below presents their overall scores.

Table 2: Warning Colleges

Campus Free Expression Since October 7, 2023

The expression climate on American college and university campuses radically changed in fall 2023 with the flaring military hostilities between Hamas and Israel. For instance, in 2023 we recorded 156 deplatforming attempts on American college and university campuses: a record number. Of these attempts, 54 involve a controversy over expression regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This year, as of this writing, we’ve recorded 110 deplatforming attempts, and 75 of them involve a controversy over expression regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [24]  

In April, campus tensions escalated once again when students protesting Israel’s military actions in Gaza set up encampments on campuses across the country. 

2024 Student Encampment Protests

How did the student encampment protests impact the state of free expression on America’s college campuses?

This section will briefly dive deeper into how student survey responses changed during the encampment protests at Columbia University — and at its affiliated undergraduate women’s college, Barnard College —  the epicenter of this protest movement. It will also explore the impact of the encampments on student responses at the University of Southern California, a university in a different region of the country where post-October 7 campus encampment protests also took place. [25]

Columbia University: In addition to setting up encampments at Columbia, student protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, a campus academic building. University administrators called the police to campus multiple times. After being called to campus by the administration, the New York City police arrested students on more than one occasion. Administrators then modified commencement ceremony plans. [26]  

All of this appears to have impacted how students perceive Columbia’s administration. 

Prior to the campus encampments which began on April 17, about 5 in 10 Columbia students said that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that their administration clearly protects speech on campus. During the encampments, 6 in 10 Columbia students said it is “not at all” or “not very” clear. Much of this shift is the result of more Columbia students saying it is “not at all” clear that their administration protects speech on campus — 26% after the start of the encampments compared to 14% before them. Before the encampments, 37% of Columbia students said it is “not at all” or “not very” likely that the administration would defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy. During the encampments, 46% said the same. 

The administration’s response to the encampments appears to have also impacted student self-censorship on campus. Prior to the encampments, when asked how often they feel like they cannot express their opinion because of how a student, professor, or the administration would respond, 27% of Columbia students said they feel this way “at least a couple of times a week.” After the start of the encampments, 36% of Columbia students said the same. Much of this increase is the result of a rise in the percentage of students who said they self-censor “very often,” meaning “nearly every day,” from 4% before the encampments to 15% after the start of the encampments.

Whether a school truly holds free expression as a core value is revealed when that school is tested by controversy. If the past year is any indication, a lot of America’s colleges and universities are failing the test.

Students also reported self-censoring more frequently after the start of the encampments than before them in conversations with other students, conversations with professors, and in classroom discussions.

Barnard College:  We already noted that Barnard ranks dead last on “Administrative Support” and suggested that this ranking is the result of the administration’s response to campus events in the wake of October 7. An analysis of Barnard student responses from before and after the encampment protests started suggests that this is indeed the case. 

Barnard students did not believe it is clear that their administration protects free speech even before the encampment protests started: 36% said it is “not at all” clear that the administration protects free speech on campus and 32% said it is “not very” clear. During the encampments, these percentages only rose. Forty-seven percent of Barnard students said it is “not at all” clear and 33% said it is “not very” clear that the administration protects free speech on campus. Prior to the encampments, 14% of Barnard students said it is “very” or “extremely” clear that the administration  does protect speech on campus. After the encampment protests started only 3% of Barnard students said the same. 

When we asked Barnard students how likely their administration would be to defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy, a similar pattern emerged. Before the encampments, 13% said the administration is “not at all” likely to defend a speaker’s rights, and 41% said it is “not very” likely to do so. During the encampments, these percentages increased to 26% and 47%, respectively.

Just like at Columbia, self-censorship among Barnard students noticeably increased after the start of the encampment protests. Prior to the encampments, when asked how often they feel like they cannot express their opinion because of how a student, professor, or the administration would respond, 32% of Barnard students said they feel this way “fairly often,” meaning “at least a couple of times a week.” After the encampments began this percentage increased to 59%. After the encampments began, 31% of Barnard students said they self-censor “very often,” meaning “nearly every day.” Only 10% said the same before the encampment protests.

University of Southern California:  In fall 2023, just before October 7, an Armenian student group at USC and others protested a campus speech by Hasan Murat Mercan, objecting to Murat Mercan's pro-Turkish stance in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Had the protesters successfully canceled or disrupted the event, they would also have prevented speeches by the Azerbaijani consul general and American diplomat James F. Jeffrey. However, the university removed the disruptive protesters from the venue. Protesters physically assaulted Murat Mercan after he left the venue.

USC canceling valedictorian’s commencement speech looks like calculated censorship

The university’s move, citing vague ‘safety concerns’ appears designed to placate critics of the student’s Israel criticism.

Then, in the spring, USC canceled valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s commencement speech, claiming allowing the address to proceed would pose “substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement.” Yet, there is no evidence that the university received any threats or took any steps to secure the event before it canceled the speech. In fact, the university appears to have been motivated by Tabassum's social media posts which criticized Israel. [27] Making matters worse, after students and faculty objected to the cancellation, the university canceled  all of its commencement speakers. These speakers included Jon Chu, Billie Jean King, Maria Rosario Jackson, and Marcia McNutt. [28]  

Prior to the start of nationwide campus encampment protests, 88% of USC students said it is at “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus. Just 12% said that it is “not very” or “not at all” clear that it does so. After the start of the encampments, however, student perceptions changed. Only roughly half of students said it is at least “somewhat” clear that their administration protects free speech. The other half said it is “not at all” or “not very” clear. As with Columbia and Barnard, a similar issue emerged when we asked USC students how likely their administration would be to defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy. Before the encampments, only 3% said the administration is “not at all” likely to defend a speaker’s rights, whereas after the start of the encampments, 23% said the same. 

Higher percentages of USC students reported discomfort expressing controversial views publicly on campus during the encampments. Prior to the encampments, 53% said they feel “very” or “somewhat” uncomfortable expressing controversial political views on a social media account tied to their name. After the start of the encampments, 67% said the same. When we asked USC students about their comfort publicly disagreeing with a professor, expressing their views during an in-class discussion, and expressing their views in a common campus space both before and after the start of the encampments, we found similar, though smaller, increases in discomfort after the start of the encampments. However, we found no discernible difference in student comfort disagreeing with a professor in a written assignment, a more private action, before versus after the start of the encampments.

National Data

Since 2020, we have surveyed more than 200,000 undergraduates for the College Free Speech Rankings. This year’s survey is the largest ever conducted on undergraduate attitudes about and experience with free expression on college campuses, with a sample size of 58,807. The remainder of this report summarizes the survey’s findings at the national level. All data presented in this section are weighted to provide a nationally representative sample of four-year college undergraduate students.

Student Political Views

Of the students surveyed, 47% identified as politically liberal, 21% identified as conservative, and 16% identified as moderate. The remaining students identified as Democratic Socialists (3%), Libertarians (2%), something else (4%), or said they “haven’t thought much about this” (8%). Seven students (0.01%) did not provide an answer.

Unsurprisingly, 228 of the 257 schools surveyed had a predominantly liberal student body, while only 29 schools had a predominantly conservative one. This latter group includes four of the six “Warning” schools: Baylor University, Brigham Young University, Hillsdale College, and Liberty University. 

At two schools — Kenyon College and Pitzer College —  only one student identified as conservative. At Macalester College, not a single student identified as conservative. The average liberal-to-conservative student ratio on the 228 predominantly liberal campuses is 7:1, with an extremely unbalanced maximum of 85:1 at Kenyon. In contrast, the average conservative-to-liberal student ratio on the 29 predominantly conservative campuses is 2:1, with a maximum of 5:1 at Hillsdale. With the exception of the University of Mississippi, which has a conservative-to-liberal student ratio of 4:1, the predominantly conservative campuses have conservative-to-liberal student ratios of 2:1 or less.

How Do Students Perceive the Administration’s Support for Free Speech?

More than 2 in 5 students (42%) reported that it is only “somewhat” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus, while roughly a quarter (24%) reported that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that it does so. 

Additionally, 47% reported that their administration would only be “somewhat” likely to defend a speaker’s right to express their views if a speech controversy occurred on campus. More than a quarter, 28%, reported that their administration would be “not at all” or “not very” likely to do so. 

More than half of students identified the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a topic that is “difficult to have an open and honest conversation about” on campus, up from 26% last year.

Although Middle Eastern students make up a small portion of the sample (0.5%), their lack of confidence in their administration’s willingness to protect free speech on campus stands out in comparison to the views of other racial and ethnic groups. A third of Middle Eastern students reported that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that the administration protects free speech on campus, and 37% reported that the administration would be “not at all” or “not very” likely to defend a speaker’s rights during a speech controversy. 

How Comfortable Are Students Expressing Political Views on Campus?

Overall, students reported low levels of comfort expressing their views on controversial political topics across five different contexts on campus. 

The percentage of students who reported feeling “very” or “somewhat” comfortable ranges from a low of 34%, when expressing an unpopular political opinion to other students on a social media account tied to one’s name, to a high of 50%, when expressing views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space or when disagreeing with a professor in a written assignment.

Male students were more likely than female students to say they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views in a number of campus contexts:

• 52% of male students and 48% of female students said they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space such as a quad, dining hall, or lounge.
• 50% of male students and 44% of female students said they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion.
• 44% of male students and 34% of female students said they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic.

Very liberal students were also more likely than all other students on campus — including somewhat liberal and slightly liberal students — to say they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views.

How Often Do Students Self-Censor on Campus?

On a positive note, college students’ concern about self-censorship has declined. This year, 17% of students said they “very” or “fairly” often feel like they cannot express their opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. Last year, this percentage was 20%, and in 2022 it was 22% [29] .

Like last year, we provided students with a definition of self-censorship. [30] We then asked three questions about how often they self-censor on campus. [31] A quarter of students said they self-censor “very” or “fairly” often during conversations with other students. And about a quarter of students said they self-censor “very” or “fairly” often during classroom discussions, in conversations with professors, and in conversations with other students. 

Middle Eastern students reported self-censoring more often than Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and multiracial students. 

Very conservative students reported self-censoring most often, with roughly a third (34%) saying they do so “very” or “fairly” often. About a quarter of somewhat conservative students (24%) reported self-censoring “very” or “fairly” often, as did about a fifth of slightly conservative students (22%). 

In contrast, only 15% of very liberal students reported self-censoring “very” or “fairly” often. Twelve percent of somewhat liberal students, 13% of slightly liberal students, and 17% of moderate students said the same.

Which Topics Do Students Find Difficult to Discuss?

More than half of students (55%) identified the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a topic that is “difficult to have an open and honest conversation about” on campus, up from 26% last year. This is only the second time in five years that more than half of all students surveyed identified a particular topic as difficult to “have an open and honest conversation about” on campus — in 2021, 51% of students said that racial inequality is difficult to discuss.

Of the 2,069 Jewish students who responded to this survey question, roughly three-quarters (74%) said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss on campus. About three-fifths of agnostic students (63%), Muslim students (59%), and atheist students (58%) said the same. Slightly more than half of Protestant students (54%) and Catholic students (53%) agreed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss on campus, while slightly lower percentages of Buddhist students (49%) and Hindu students (45%) said the same.

College Protests and the First Amendment

Issue pages.

What are your rights when it comes to protesting on a college campus? FIRE explains your civil liberties on campus during times of protest.

At some schools the percentage of students who said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss on campus is considerably higher than 54%. 

At the following schools, at least 80% of students said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to discuss: 

• Barnard College (88%)
• Pomona College (85%)
• Brandeis University (84%)
• American University (84%)
• Vassar College (82%)

At the following schools, at least three-quarters of students said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to discuss:

• Mount Holyoke College (79%)
• Skidmore College (79%)
• Tulane University (79%)
• Columbia University (78%)
• Scripps College (78%)
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (77%)
• Colorado College (76%) 
• Washington University in St. Louis (76%)
• Bowdoin College (75%)
• George Washington University (75%)
• Middlebury College (75%)
• University of Denver (75%)

When asked which topics are “difficult to have an open and honest conversation about” on campus, 45% of students identified abortion, 41% identified transgender rights, 36% identified racial inequality, and 36% identified gun control. From last year to this year, the percentage of students who identified each of these topics as difficult to discuss declined.

Table 3. Trends in difficult topics to discuss on campus, 2020-present

Conservative students, and particularly very conservative students, were more likely than liberal or moderate students to say that abortion, transgender rights, and racial inequality are difficult topics to discuss on campus. This pattern reverses for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Liberal students, particularly very liberal students, were more likely than conservative or moderate students to say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to discuss.

How Acceptable Do Students Consider Different Forms of Disruptive Conduct?

Although most students oppose the use of disruptive tactics to stop a campus speech, disappointing proportions find such tactics acceptable to some degree (answering “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely”). 

This year, just over half of students (52%) reported that blocking other students from attending a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable, up from 45% in 2023 and 37% in 2022. Even more concerning, about a third of students (32%) reported that using violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable, up from 27% last year and 20% in 2022.

While shouting down a speaker is nonviolent, it is still disruptive and threatens free expression. Successful shoutdowns are examples of the “heckler’s veto” — when an individual or group “vetoes” a speech by severely and substantially disrupting it so that it cannot continue. This year, more than two-thirds of students (68%) said that shouting down a speaker is at least “rarely” acceptable, an increase from 63% last year and 62% in 2022.

Students’ political identification correlates with their level of acceptance of disruptive conduct. 

Very liberal students were particularly accepting of disruptive behaviors:

• 84% of very liberal students said that shouting down a speaker is at least “rarely” acceptable.
• 66% of very liberal students said that blocking other students from attending a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable.
• 38% of very liberal students said that using violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable.

How Tolerant Are Students of Controversial Speakers?

Each year, thousands of lectures and planned talks occur on college campuses across the country without incident. Some of these events spark controversy over the speakers’ views or previous remarks, leading students to attempt to get the speaker uninvited from speaking on campus. These deplatforming attempts can include demanding the silencing of speakers or those who invited them, calling for college officials to disinvite invited guest speakers, disrupting events, and even using violence to prevent expression from occurring. 

Political tolerance has long been assessed by asking people whether they would grant civil liberties — primarily freedom of speech — to nonconformists and controversial or offensive speakers. [32] Therefore, this survey asks students whether, regardless of their own views on the topic, their school should allow a speaker on campus who has expressed one of the following eight ideas: [33]

• “Abortion should be completely illegal.”
• “Black Lives Matter is a hate group.”
• “Transgender people have a mental disorder.”
• “The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution.”
• “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.” 
• “Children should be able to transition without parental consent.”
• “Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security.”
• “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

Overall, a majority of students said that six of the eight speakers should “definitely” or “probably” not be allowed on campus. Roughly two-thirds of students opposed the speaker who said “Transgender people have a mental disorder” (68%), and the same percentage opposed the speaker who said “Black Lives Matter is a hate group.” At least half opposed the speakers who said the following: 

• “The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution” (51%). 
• “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” (53%).
• “Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security” (59%). 

In contrast, 71% of students said that a speaker who said “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” should “definitely” or “probably” be allowed on campus, and 56% said the same about a speaker who said “Children should be able to transition without parental consent.”

Similar to the student responses on the different forms of disruptive conduct, student opposition to controversial speakers often correlated with political identity. 

A majority of very liberal students said that all three controversial liberal speakers should “definitely” or “probably” be allowed on campus, with support ranging from 60% (“The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution”) to 74% (“Children should be able to transition without parental consent”). This is not the case for somewhat liberal students or slightly liberal students, a majority of whom opposed allowing on campus the speaker who said “The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution” and the speaker who said “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.

Conclusions

We have good reason to be concerned about the state of free expression on American college and university campuses. Attempts to deplatform campus speakers for their expression are at record levels, [34] and a majority of college undergraduates oppose inviting controversial speakers to campus. [35] During the encampment protests students occupied buildings and attempted to disrupt a number of commencement ceremonies. [36] Before and after the start of these protests, administrators suppressed student and faculty speech and, in some cases, even called in police to arrest students. [37]  

Many colleges’ Free Speech Rankings scores reflect their responses to these events. 

For instance, some of the bottom ranked schools bungled their response to student protests. Stifling expression is not the answer, and arbitrarily applying speech code policies to punish students for some kinds of speech but not others undermines an administration’s credibility. This is reflected by the fact that many of the bottom ranked schools have poor “Administrative Support” scores. A deeper analysis of survey data collected during the encampment protests at Barnard College, Columbia University, and the University of Southern California found that student confidence that the administration protects free speech plummeted from before the start of the encampments to after the encampments were established.

Indiana University and the University of Texas at Austin both ranked in the bottom 10. At Indiana University, this followed reports of snipers stationed on the roofs of campus buildings after the administration called the police to shut down an encampment protest. At the University of Texas at Austin, it followed the university preemptively calling the police to campus, presumably to prevent students from establishing an encampment. [38] Both of these schools also have poor “Administrative Support” scores, ranking 240 and 228, respectively. 

Contrast this with the top schools in the rankings. Encampment protests also occurred at many of these schools. However, they largely resisted the urge to punish students and faculty for their expression. 

Beyond their responses to the encampments, many of the top schools have established a clear pattern of good behavior. 

Not a single deplatforming has occurred at any of them since 2020, and sanctions of faculty and students are rare. The exception is Claremont McKenna, where three scholar sanctions occurred in quick succession in 2021 and 2022: These three sanctions are likely the only thing keeping Claremont McKenna out of the rankings’ top spot. The University of Virginia and Michigan Technological University rank 1 and 2, respectively, because on multiple occasions they clearly stood up for free speech on campus.

This year’s rankings not only capture the expression climate on U.S. college and university campuses, but also reflect current events. The results also reveal the utility of including additional campus behavioral metrics: data from FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database, Scholars Under Fire database, and forthcoming Students Under Fire database. 

Ultimately, these data send a clear message to college and university administrators: Leadership matters. Contrast the behavior of administrators at UVA and Michigan Tech with that of administrators at Barnard, Columbia, and Harvard. 

Colleges and universities can do a lot to set the tone of the expression climate on campus. For starters, they can maintain clear policies that defend expressive rights, not ambiguous ones that administrators can apply arbitrarily whenever they see fit. With that said, maintaining clear speech-protective policies is not enough. Whether a school truly holds free expression as a core value is revealed when that school is tested by controversy. 

If the past year is any indication, a lot of America’s colleges and universities are failing the test.

Methodology

The College Free Speech Rankings survey was developed by FIRE and administered by College Pulse. No donors to the project took part in designing or conducting the survey. The survey was fielded from January 25 through June 17, 2024. These data come from a sample of 58,807 undergraduates who were then enrolled full-time in four-year degree programs at one of a list of 258 colleges and universities in the United States. The margin of error for the U.S. undergraduate population is +/- 0.4 of a percentage point, and the margin of error for college student sub-demographics ranges from 2-5 percentage points.

The initial sample was drawn from College Pulse’s American College Student Panel™, which includes more than 850,000 verified undergraduate students and recent alumni from schools within a range of more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and universities in all 50 states. Panel members were recruited by a number of methods to help ensure student diversity in the panel population. These methods include web advertising, permission-based email campaigns, and partnerships with university-affiliated organizations. To ensure the panel reflects the diverse backgrounds and experiences of the American college population, College Pulse recruited panelists from a wide variety of institutions. The panel includes students attending large public universities, small private colleges, online universities, historically Black colleges such as Howard University, women’s colleges such as Smith College, and religiously-affiliated colleges such as Brigham Young University. 

College Pulse uses a two-stage validation process to ensure that all its surveys include only students currently enrolled in two-year or four-year colleges or universities. Students are required to provide an “.edu” email address to join the panel and, for this survey, had to acknowledge that they are currently enrolled full-time in a four-year degree program. All invitations to complete surveys were sent using the student’s “.edu” email address or through a notification in the College Pulse app, available on iOS and Android platforms. 

College Pulse applies a post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions from multiple data sources, including the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The “weight” rebalances the sample based on a number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables to produce a representative sample of four year undergraduate students in the United States. 

This year College Pulse introduced a similar post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions from multiple data sources, including the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The “school universe weight” rebalances the sample based on a number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables to produce a representative sample of four year undergraduate students from the 257 colleges and universities surveyed. 

College Pulse also applies a post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This “school weight” rebalances the sample from each individual school surveyed based on a number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables to produce a representative sample of students at each individual school. 

All weights are trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results and to ensure over-sampled population groups do not completely lose their voice.

The use of these weights in statistical analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the target populations. Even with these adjustments, surveys may be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context, and order effects. 

For further information, please see:  https://collegepulse.com/methodology .

Free Speech Rankings

The College Free Speech Rankings are based on a composite score of 14 components, seven of which assess student perceptions of different aspects of the speech climate on their campus. The other seven assess behavior by administrators, faculty, and students regarding free expression on campus. Higher scores indicate a better campus climate for free speech and expression.

Student Perceptions

The student perception components include: 

• Comfort Expressing Ideas: Students were asked how comfortable they feel expressing their views on controversial topics in five different campus contexts (e.g., “in class,” or “in the dining hall”). Options ranged from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable.” Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate greater comfort expressing ideas. The maximum number of points is 20.
• Self-Censorship: Students were provided with a definition of self-censorship and then asked how often they self-censored in three different contexts on campus (e.g., “in a classroom discussion”). Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate self-censoring less often. The maximum number of points is 15. [39]  
• Tolerance for Liberal Speakers: Students were asked whether three speakers espousing views potentially offensive to conservatives (e.g., “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.”) should be allowed on campus, regardless of whether they personally agree with the speaker’s message. Options ranged from “definitely should not allow this speaker” to “definitely should allow this speaker” and were coded so that higher scores indicate more tolerance of the speaker (i.e., more support for allowing the speaker on campus). The maximum number of points is 12.
• Tolerance for Conservative Speakers: Students were also asked whether three speakers espousing views potentially offensive to liberals (e.g., “Black Lives Matter is a hate group”) should be allowed on campus, regardless of whether they personally agree with the speaker’s message. Scoring was performed in the same manner as it was for the “Tolerance for Liberal Speakers” subcomponent, and the maximum number of points is 12.
• Disruptive Conduct: Students were asked how acceptable it is to engage in different methods of protest against a campus speaker, including “shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus,” “blocking other students from attending a campus speech,” and “using violence to stop a campus speech.” Options ranged from “always acceptable” to “never acceptable” and were coded so that higher scores indicate less acceptance of disruptive conduct. The maximum number of points is 12. 
• Administrative Support: Students were asked how clear it is that their administration protects free speech on campus and how likely the administration would be to defend a speaker’s right to express their views if a controversy over speech occurred on campus. For the administrative clarity question, options ranged from “not at all clear” to “extremely clear,” and for the administrative controversy question, options ranged from “not at all likely” to “extremely likely.” Options were coded so that higher scores indicate greater clarity and a greater likelihood of defending a speaker’s rights. The maximum number of points is 10. 
• Openness: Finally, students were asked which of 20 issues (e.g., “abortion,” “freedom of speech,” “gun control,” and “racial inequality”), if any, are difficult to have open conversations about on campus. Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate fewer issues being selected. The maximum number of points is 20.

Two additional constructs, “Mean Tolerance” and “Tolerance Difference,” were computed from the “Tolerance for Liberal/Conservative Speaker” components. “Tolerance Difference” was calculated by subtracting “Tolerance for Conservative Speakers” from “Tolerance for Liberal Speakers” and then taking the absolute value (so that a bias in favor of either side would be treated the same).

Campus Behavioral Metrics

Schools received bonus points — described in more detail below — for unequivocally supporting free expression in response to speech controversies by taking the following actions indicative of a positive campus climate for free speech: 

• Supporting free expression during a deplatforming campaign, as recorded in FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database. [40]  
• Supporting a scholar whose speech rights were threatened during a free speech controversy, as recorded in FIRE's Scholars Under Fire database. [41]  
• Supporting students and student groups, as recorded in the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings behavioral metrics documentation that is available online. [42]

Schools were penalized — described in more detail below — for taking the following actions indicative of poor campus climate for free speech: 

• Successfully deplatforming a speaker, as recorded in FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database.
• Sanctioning a scholar (e.g., placing under investigation, suspending, or terminating a scholar), as recorded in FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database. 
• Sanctioning a student or student groups, as recorded in the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings behavioral metrics documentation that is available online.

To be included in this year’s rankings, an incident that resulted in a bonus or penalty had to have been recorded by June 15, 2024, and had to have been fully assessed by FIRE’s research staff, who determined whether the incident warranted inclusion. 

In response to the encampment protests, FIRE and College Pulse reopened the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings survey on any campus with an encampment. This allowed us to collect survey data from students while the encampments were taking place. [43] That means that this year’s College Free Speech Rankings provide a treasure trove of data on the evolving state of free expression at American colleges and universities.

FIRE’s Spotlight ratings — our ratings of the written policies governing student speech at nearly 500 institutions of higher education in the United States — also factored into each school's overall score. Three substantive ratings are possible: “red light,” “yellow light,” and “green light.” A “red light” rating indicates that the institution has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. A “yellow light” rating indicates that an institution maintains at least one policy that places a clear restriction on a more limited amount of protected expression, or one that, by virtue of vague wording, could too easily be used to restrict protected expression. A “green light” rating indicates that an institution maintains no policies that seriously threaten speech, although this rating does not indicate whether a college actively supports free expression. [44]  

Finally, a fourth rating, “Warning,” is assigned to a private college or university when its policies clearly and consistently state that it prioritizes other values over a commitment to free speech. Warning schools, therefore, were not ranked, and their overall scores are presented separately in this report. [45]

For this year’s rankings, the cutoff date for assessing a school’s speech code policies was June 15, 2024. Any changes to a school’s Spotlight rating that occurred since then will be reflected in the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings.

Overall Score

To create an overall score for each college, we first summed the following student subcomponents: “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” “Self-Censorship,” “Mean Tolerance,” “Disruptive Conduct,” “Administrative Support,” and “Openness.” Then, we subtracted the “Tolerance Difference.” By including the “Mean Tolerance” (as opposed to including “Tolerance for Liberal Speakers” and “Tolerance for Conservative Speakers” separately) and subtracting the “Tolerance Difference,” the score accounted for the possibility that ideologically homogeneous student bodies may result in a campus that  appears to have a strong culture of free expression but is actually hostile to the views of an ideological minority — whose views students may almost never encounter on campus.

Then, to further account for the speech climate on an individual campus, we incorporated behavioral components. A school earned two bonus points each time it unequivocally defended free expression during a campus speech controversy — a rating of “High Honors” for its public response to a speech controversy. For instance, when the student government at Arizona State University opposed a registered student group’s invitation to Mohammed el-Kurd to speak on campus, and other members of the campus community petitioned the university to disinvite el-Kurd, a university spokesperson responded: 

The university is committed to a safe environment where the free exchange of ideas can take place . . . As a public university, ASU adheres to the First Amendment and strives to ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression. All individuals and groups on campus have the right to express their opinions, whatever those opinions may be, as long as they do not violate the student code of conduct, student organization policies, and do not infringe on another student’s individual rights.

el-Kurd spoke successfully on campus, and we awarded ASU two bonus points.

A school earned one bonus point for responding to a speech controversy by making a public statement that strongly defends the First Amendment but is not as full-throated a defense as a “High Honors” statement. These statements received the rating of “Honors.” For instance, at New York University, NYU Law Students for Palestine and Jewish Law Students for a Free Palestine called for the cancellation of an event featuring Robert Howse and Michal Cotler-Wunsh, because Cotler-Wunsh supports the occupation of Palestine. The event was co-sponsored by a student group, NYU’s Jewish Law Students Association, as well as the president's office and the Bronfman Center for Jewish Life. NYU did not cancel the event, and protesters interrupted Cotler-Wunsh several times during his remarks before voluntarily leaving, allowing the event to resume and conclude successfully. The dean of the law school said the following in response:  

The principles of free speech and inquiry are complemented by debate, challenge and protest . . . While dissent may be vigorous, it must not interfere with the speaker’s ability to communicate — which is exactly why, should those interrupters not have left on their own accord, they would be subject to discipline.

We awarded one point for this response, which occurred in 2024, then we set this bonus to decrease by one-quarter of a point for each year that passes. 

We also applied penalties when a school sanctioned a scholar, student, or student group, or deplatformed a speaker. 

A school lost up to five points each time it sanctioned (e.g., investigated, suspended, or terminated) a scholar. When the sanction did not result in termination the school received a penalty of one point, which we set to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year: This meant penalizing a school a full point for sanctioning a scholar in 2024, three-quarters of a point for sanctioning a scholar in 2023, half a point for sanctioning a scholar in 2022, and one-quarter of a point for sanctioning a scholar in 2021. However, if the administration terminated the scholar, we subtracted three points, and if that scholar was tenured, we subtracted five points. We applied full penalties for termination for four years, then set them to decline by one-quarter of a point each year. So, a penalty for termination that occurred in 2020 has just now started to decay.

A school lost up to three points for sanctioning students or student groups. When the sanction did not result in expulsion, the revocation of acceptance, the denial or revoking of recognition, suspension, or termination of a student’s campus employment (e.g, as a resident assistant) the school received a penalty of one point. Like with scholar sanctions that did not result in termination, we set these penalties to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year. If a school suspended a student or terminated their campus employment, we penalized it two points. We also set these penalties to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year. However, if a school denied or revoked a student group’s recognition, expelled a student, or revoked their acceptance, it was penalized three points. We applied these penalties in full for four years, then set them to decline by one-quarter of a point each year.

Regarding deplatforming attempts, a school was penalized one point if an invited speaker withdrew because of the controversy caused by their upcoming appearance on campus or if an event was postponed in response to a controversy. We set this penalty to decrease by a quarter of a point each year. Schools where an attempted disruption occurred received a penalty of two points. We applied this penalty for four years, then set it to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year. Schools with deplatforming attempts that resulted in an event cancellation, a preemptive rejection of a speaker, the removal of artwork on display, the revocation of a speaker’s invitation, or a substantial event disruption were penalized three points. We applied these penalties in full for four years, then set them to decline by one-quarter of a point each year.

After we applied bonuses and penalties, we standardized each school’s score by group — Warning schools and other schools — making the average score in each group 50.00 and the standard deviation 10.00. Following standardization, we added one standard deviation to the final score of colleges who received a green light rating for their speech codes. We also subtracted half a standard deviation from the final score of colleges that received a yellow light rating, one standard deviation from the final score of schools that received a red light rating, and two standard deviations from schools that received a Warning rating.

Overall Score = (50 + (Z Raw Overall Score )(10)) + FIRE Rating

Campus Speech Controversies

Deplatforming attempts.

FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database documents efforts to censor invited speakers, artwork, film screenings, or performances (e.g., comedy shows, plays) on public and private American college and university campuses  from 1998-present. Schools included in the rankings received bonuses for unequivocally defending free expression during a deplatforming campaign from 2020-mid-2024. They received penalties for successfully deplatforming a speaker or for being the site of a substantial event disruption (when one or more people unsuccessfully attempt to disrupt an event, entirely prevent a speaker from speaking, or prevent an audience from hearing the speaker) within the same time frame. [46]

At the schools surveyed, a total of 102 successful deplatforming incidents (60%) occurred. They include: [47]  

• 45 substantial event disruptions, when one or more people substantially disrupt or entirely prevent a speaker from speaking or prevent an audience from hearing the speaker. 
• 36 revocations, when a speaker’s invitation is rescinded. 
• Six rejections, when a school or the student government preemptively rejects a speaker. 
• Seven withdrawals, when a speaker cancels an event in response to a disinvitation campaign. 
• Three postponements, when an event is postponed to a later date due to controversy. 
• Six cancellations of performances or film screenings.
• Two removals of displayed artwork. 

All of these deplatforming incidents negatively impacted a school's overall score.

FIRE also recorded 44 attempted disruptions at the 257 schools surveyed. These incidents also negatively impacted a school's overall score.

The 102 successful deplatforming attempts occurred on 71 of the 257 campuses. Harvard University and New York University, two of the lowest ranked schools, experienced four successful deplatformings each. Dartmouth College, Syracuse University, the University of Houston, the University of New Mexico, and the University of Southern California each experienced three successful deplatformings since 2020.

The following 21 schools were each the site of more than one successful deplatforming incident and altogether account for 53 of the 102 successful deplatforming attempts (52%). A number of these schools — Barnard College, Harvard, NYU, Syracuse, the University of Pennsylvania, and USC — also rank in the bottom 10 of this year’s College Free Speech Rankings with either a “Very Poor” or “Abysmal” speech climate: 

• Harvard University
• New York University
• Dartmouth College
• Syracuse University
• University of Houston
• University of New Mexico
• University of Southern California
• Barnard College
• Brown University
• Indiana University
• Pennsylvania State University
• San Jose State University
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Davis
• University of California, Los Angeles
• University of Florida
• University of Michigan
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Utah
• University of Vermont

Harvard University also experienced four attempted disruptions since 2020. Only seven other schools experienced more than one attempted disruption in this time frame. The University of Iowa experienced three attempted disruptions, and Columbia University, Michigan State University, Stanford University, Tufts University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Texas at Austin each experienced two attempted disruptions.

We recorded 29 instances of schools supporting free expression in response to a deplatforming campaign. In all of these instances a school received a bonus that either positively impacted its overall score or mitigated the damage done to its score by a successful deplatforming attempt. 

Only Georgetown University and the University of Virginia unequivocally defended free expression during more than one deplatforming campaign, and they received multiple bonuses in the rankings for doing so.

Scholars Under Fire

FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database covers expression-related incidents from 2000-present. It documents how and why scholars faced calls for sanction, how scholars and administrators responded, and what (if any) sanctions scholars experienced. Schools included in the rankings received bonuses or penalties based on their responses to these kinds of controversies from 2020-mid-2024. [48]

At the schools surveyed, a total of 148 scholar sanctions occurred. They include: 

• 37 scholars who were terminated. 
• 11 scholars who resigned. 
• 26 scholars who were suspended. 
• 10 scholars who were demoted. 
• 36 scholars who were censored. 
• Three scholars who were required to undergo training. 
• 25 scholars who were investigated. [49]  

Each of these incidents negatively impacted a school's overall score. On 11 occasions, a college or university unequivocally defended a scholar’s free expression in response to a sanction attempt. These incidents positively impacted a school’s overall score.

The 148 scholar sanctions occurred on 83 of the 257 campuses surveyed. Since 2020, eight scholar sanctions occurred at Columbia University, six occurred at Harvard University, and five occurred at George Washington University. The following 14 schools were each the site of three or more scholar sanctions and altogether accounted for 61 of the 148 scholar sanctions that factored into the College Free Speech Rankings (43%):

• Columbia University
• George Washington University
• University of Central Florida
• University of Texas at Austin
• Yale University
• Claremont McKenna College
• Emory University
• Texas A&M University
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

As with successful deplatformings, a number of these schools — Columbia, Harvard, NYU, IU, and Penn — also landed in the bottom 10 of the rankings with a “Poor,” “Very Poor” or “Abysmal” speech climate.

We recorded 12 instances of schools supporting free expression in response to a scholar sanction attempt. In all of these instances, a school received a bonus that positively impacted its overall score. 

The University of California, Berkeley, is the only school that supported a scholar’s free expression on more than one occasion. The following schools supported a scholar’s free expression on one occasion: Boise State University, George Washington University, Princeton University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia, and Yale University. 

Students Under Fire

FIRE’s Students Under Fire database covers expression-related incidents from 2020-present. It documents how and why students or student groups faced calls for sanction, how administrators responded, and what (if any) sanctions students experienced. Schools included in the rankings received bonuses or penalties based on their responses to these kinds of controversies from 2020-mid-2024. [50]

At the colleges surveyed, a total of 204 student sanctions occurred. They include: 

• Four students who were expelled. 
• Six students whose acceptance to the school or scholarship was revoked. 
• 10 student groups whose recognition was denied or rescinded. 
• 21 students or student groups who were suspended. 
• 73 students or student groups who were censored. 
• 62 students or student groups who were placed under investigation. 
• Seven students who were required to undergo training or issue an apology or other statement. 
• Three students who were terminated from their campus employment. 
• 18 students or student groups whose sanctions were issued by the student government. 

Each of these incidents negatively impacted a school's overall score. 

The 204 student sanctions occurred on 107 of the 257 campuses surveyed. Since 2020, Syracuse University has sanctioned seven students or student groups. In the same time frame, Harvard University sanctioned six students or student groups, and Stanford University sanctioned five. The following seven schools were the site of four or more student sanctioning incidents since 2020:

• Stanford University
• American University
• Northwestern University

As with successful deplatformings and scholar sanctions, a number of these schools — Harvard, NYU, and Syracuse — also landed in the bottom 10 of this year’s College Free Speech Rankings with either a “Very Poor” or “Abysmal” speech climate.

Another 16 schools were the site of three student sanctioning incidents since 2020. This group of schools includes three more bottom-10 schools: Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Indiana University. 

We recorded 14 instances of schools supporting free expression in response to a student sanctioning attempt. In all of these instances, we awarded the school a bonus that positively impacted its overall score or mitigated the impact of a penalty it incurred. Arizona State University, which ranks 14, received three bonuses for its defense of student expression. Other notable schools that actively defended student free expression include the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, which ranks 22, and the top two schools in the rankings, the University of Virginia and Michigan Technological University.

Survey Questions and Topline Results

How clear is it to you that your college administration protects free speech on campus?

      7% Not at all clear     17% Not very clear     42% Somewhat clear     27% Very clear       7% Extremely clear

If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how likely is it that the administration would defend the speaker’s right to express their views?

      7% Not at all likely     21% Not very likely     47% Somewhat likely     20% Very likely       5% Extremely likely

How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus? [Presented in randomized order]

Publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic.

    33% Very uncomfortable     36% Somewhat uncomfortable     23% Somewhat comfortable       9% Very comfortable

Expressing disagreement with one of your professors about a controversial political topic in a written assignment.

    25% Very uncomfortable     35% Somewhat uncomfortable     29% Somewhat comfortable     11% Very comfortable

Expressing your views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion.

    20% Very uncomfortable     33% Somewhat uncomfortable     34% Somewhat comfortable     13% Very comfortable

Expressing your views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space such as a quad, dining hall, or lounge.

    17% Very uncomfortable     32% Somewhat uncomfortable     35% Somewhat comfortable     14% Very comfortable

Expressing an unpopular political opinion to your fellow students on a social media account tied to your name.

    33% Very uncomfortable     34% Somewhat uncomfortable     24% Somewhat comfortable       9% Very comfortable

On your campus, how often have you felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?

    17% Never     38% Rarely     28% Occasionally, once or twice a month     12% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       5% Very often, nearly every day

This next series of questions asks you about self-censorship in different settings. For the purpose of these questions, self-censorship is defined as follows:

Refraining from sharing certain views because you fear social (e.g., exclusion from social events), professional (e.g., losing job or promotion), legal (e.g., prosecution or fine), or violent (e.g., assault) consequences, whether in person or remotely (e.g., by phone or online), and whether the consequences come from state or non-state sources.

How often do you self-censor during conversations with other students on campus?

    12% Never     33% Rarely     31% Occasionally, once or twice a month     17% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       6% Very often, nearly every day

How often do you self-censor during conversations with your professors?

    12% Never     33% Rarely     30% Occasionally, once or twice a month     17% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       8% Very often, nearly every day

How often do you self-censor during classroom discussions?

    11% Never     32% Rarely     32% Occasionally, once or twice a month     18% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       8% Very often, nearly every day

How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker? [Presented in randomized order]

Shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.

      7% Always acceptable     30% Sometimes acceptable     32% Rarely acceptable     32% Never acceptable

Blocking other students from attending a campus speech.

      4% Always acceptable     18% Sometimes acceptable     29% Rarely acceptable     48% Never acceptable

Using violence to stop a campus speech.

      3% Always acceptable     11% Sometimes acceptable     18% Rarely acceptable     68% Never acceptable

Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who promotes the following idea? [Presented in randomized order]

Transgender people have a mental disorder.

    37% Definitely should not allow this speaker     31% Probably should not allow this this speaker     20% Probably should allow this speaker     12% Definitely should allow this speaker

Abortion should be completely illegal.

    25% Definitely should not allow this speaker     28% Probably should not allow this this speaker     30% Probably should allow this speaker     15% Definitely should allow this speaker

Black Lives Matter is a hate group.

    36% Definitely should not allow this speaker     33% Probably should not allow this this speaker     21% Probably should allow this speaker     11% Definitely should allow this speaker

The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution.

    17% Definitely should not allow this speaker     34% Probably should not allow this this speaker     33% Probably should allow this speaker     15% Definitely should allow this speaker

The police are just as racist as the Klu[sic] Klux Klan. 

    20% Definitely should not allow this speaker     33% Probably should not allow this this speaker     32% Probably should allow this speaker     15% Definitely should allow this speaker

Children should be able to transition without parental consent.

    15% Definitely should not allow this speaker     28% Probably should not allow this this speaker     38% Probably should allow this speaker     18% Definitely should allow this speaker

Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security.

    26% Definitely should not allow this speaker     34% Probably should not allow this this speaker     28% Probably should allow this speaker     12% Definitely should allow this speaker

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

     8% Definitely should not allow this speaker     20% Probably should not allow this this speaker     43% Probably should allow this speaker     28% Definitely should allow this speaker

Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus? [Percentage selecting each option]

    45% Abortion      24% Affirmative action     13% China     14% Climate change     16% Crime     22% Economic inequality     22% Freedom of speech     31% Gay rights     29% Gender inequality     36% Gun control     29%  Hate speech     27% Immigration     54% The Israeli/Palestinian conflict     31%  The Presidential Election     31% Police misconduct     36% Racial inequality     34% Religion     29% Sexual assault     14% The Supreme Court     41% Transgender rights     12% None of the above

Note: The survey asked additional questions that were not included in the calculation of the College Free Speech Rankings. The data for these questions will be released in a separate set of analyses.

[1] Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S. (March 12, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, Part 1: Campus free speech was in trouble in 2018, and the data shows it has gotten much worse. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-1 ; 

Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S (March 21, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, part 2: When it comes to free speech, the college kids are not alright. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-2 ; 

Stevens, S. (April 12, 2024). Deplatforming attempts are surging in 2024: Buckle up, folks. It’s not even disinvitation season yet. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/deplatforming-attempts-are-surging-2024 . 

[2] Appleby, J. (July 11, 2024). University of Florida suspends student for three years over peaceful protest: In response to campus protests related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, UF made up unlawful rules to punish students for protected expression.Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/university-florida-suspends-student-three-years-over-peaceful-protest ; Coward, T. (July 2, 2024). House Oversight Committee continues chilling investigation into student groups and nonprofits. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/house-oversight-committee-continues-chilling-investigation-student-groups-and-nonprofits ; Shibley, R. (June 2, 2024). Fed investigation of Lafayette College over Israel-Hamas protests highlights new threat to free speech. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/fed-investigation-lafayette-college-over-israel-hamas-protests-highlights-new-threat-free . 

[3] Appleby J. & Piro, G. (December 18, 2023). More colleges threaten to restrict speech in wake of Penn president’s resignation: Institutions abandon their free speech protections at students’ peril. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/more-colleges-threaten-restrict-speech-wake-penn-presidents-resignation ; Eduardo, A. (January 2, 2024). In the aftermath of Claudine Gay's resignation, here's how Harvard can reform itself: With the loss of its president, America’s worst college for free speech is at another crossroads. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/aftermath-claudine-gays-resignation-heres-how-harvard-can-reform-itself . 

[4] Alonso, J. (April 24, 2024). Why Are Students Camping on University Lawns? A new wave of campus protests has hit institutions from California to Massachusetts, many emboldened by arrests at Columbia University. Available online:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2024/04/24/students-set-encampments-coast-coast . 

[5] FIRE (June 20, 2024). POLL: Americans oppose campus protesters defacing property, occupying buildings. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-americans-oppose-campus-protesters-defacing-property-occupying-buildings . 

[6] 6.  Honeycutt, N. (June 11, 2024). Confidence in colleges and universities hits new lows, per FIRE polls: Young people, women, and Democrats reported the largest drops. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/confidence-colleges-and-universities-hits-new-lows-fire-polls . 

[7] Schools were not penalized for how they handled the encampment protests. As this report demonstrates, the  impact of the encampment protests on the campus speech climate is captured by responses to survey questions  that ask students about their confidence in that their college administration protects speech rights on campus, their comfort expressing controversial political views, and how frequently they self-censor. Deplatformings that occurred during the encampment protests were also still included in the calculation of the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings.

[8] Harvard’s actual score was -21.50, Columbia’s was -0.53. Both scores were rounded up to 0.00.

[9] FIRE’s documentation of speech controversies that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available online: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx .

[10] The mean “Administrative Support” score for the top five schools (M = 6.30, S.D. = 0.19) is significantly higher than the mean “Administrative Support” score for the bottom schools (M = 5.05, S.D. = 0.49),  t (8) = 5.26,  p < .0001.

[11] The average of the top five schools’  “Comfort Expressing Ideas” score (M = 11.76, S.D. = 0.50) is significantly higher than the average “Comfort Expressing Ideas” score for the bottom five schools (M = 10.61, S.D. = 0.61),  t (8) = 5.26,  p = .01. The average of the top five schools’ “Tolerance Difference” score (M = 0.61, S.D. = 0.42) is significantly lower than the average “Tolerance Difference” score for the top bottom schools (M = 1.53, S.D. = 0.45),  t (8) = -4.03,  p < .01.

[12] FIRE (February 13, 2024). 10 Worst Censors: 2024. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/10-worst-censors-2024 . 

[13] Colleges whose speech policies received a “Warning” rating from FIRE were given a rank of Warning (see Methodology, available in the Appendix). We do, however, present their overall scores in this report. These scores were standardized separately from non-Warning schools so that the overall scores of Warning schools were computed only in comparison to one another. As a result, 251 schools are ranked this year.

[14] Prasad, V. (February 22, 2024). What is happening to medical students? Shouting down speakers reaches the University of Chicago. Available online:  https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/what-is-happening-to-medical-students . 

[15] Coyne, J. (November 18, 2023). Violating University of Chicago speech regulations, pro-Palestinian students shout down Jewish students and shut down their speeches; University does nothing to stop the disruption. Available online:  https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/11/18/violating-university-of-chicago-speech-regulations-pro-palestinian-students-shout-down-jewish-students-and-shut-down-their-speeches-university-does-nothing-to-stop-the-disruption/ . 

[16] President Alivisatos’s statement is available online:  https://president.uchicago.edu/from-the-president/messages/231101-enormous-gifts-and-great-responsibilities . 

[17] FIRE (March 21, 2024). Virginia Commonwealth University earns top rating for free speech. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/virginia-commonwealth-university-earns-top-rating-free-speech ; FIRE (June 11, 2024). University of South Carolina earns top rating for free speech. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/university-south-carolina-earns-top-rating-free-speech . 

[18] 18.  Stevens, S., & Schwictenberg, A. (2020). 2020 College Free Speech Rankings: What’s the Climate for Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2020-college-free-speech-rankings ; Stevens, S., & Schwictenberg, A. (2021). 2021 College Free Speech Rankings: What’s the Climate for Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2021-college-free-speech-rankings ;  Stevens, S.T. (2022). 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2022-2023-college-free-speech-rankings ; 

Stevens, S.T. (2023). 2024 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Available online: 

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings . 

[19] FIRE (February 13, 2024). 10 Worst Censors: 2024.  The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.  Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/10-worst-censors-2024 . 

[20] A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025.

[21] Huddleston, S. & Mendell, C. (November 10, 2023). Columbia suspends SJP and JVP following ‘unauthorized’ Thursday walkout. Available online:  https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2023/11/10/columbia-suspends-sjp-and-jvp-following-unauthorized-thursday-walkout/ . 

[22] Costescu, J. (March 25, 2024). At Columbia, an Israeli-Designated Terror Group Teaches 'Palestinian Resistance 101'—And Lauds Plane Hijackings. Available online:  https://freebeacon.com/campus/at-columbia-an-israeli-designated-terror-group-teaches-palestinian-resistance-101-and-lauds-plane-hijackings/ . 

[23] A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025.

[24] See FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database, available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database . 

[25] Hernandez, A.O. & Kaleem, J. (April 19, 2024). USC cancels appearance by director Jon Chu, others amid valedictorian controversy. Available online:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-19/usc-axes-high-profile-guest-speaker-from-commencement-lineup-amid-backlash-over-cancelled-valedictorian-speech . 

[26] Zanger, J., Dhaliwal, N., & Saeidi, M. (May 6, 2024). Columbia University cancels main 2024 commencement ceremony, will host multiple ceremonies instead. Available online:  https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-university-commencement-2024/ .  

[27] Morey, A. (April 17, 2024). USC canceling valedictorian’s commencement speech looks like calculated censorship. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/usc-canceling-valedictorians-commencement-speech-looks-calculated-censorship . 

[28] Chow, V. (April 19, 2024). USC cancels all commencement speakers amid valedictorian speech controversy. Available online:  https://ktla.com/news/local-news/usc-cancels-all-commencement-speakers-amid-valedictorian-speech-controversy/ ; The University of Southern California’s official statement is available online:  https://commencement.usc.edu/2024/04/19/commencement-update-april-19-2024/ . 

[29] Student responses to this question were not incorporated into a school’s overall score for the College Free Speech Rankings.

[30] Self-censorship was defined as the act of refraining from sharing certain views because you fear social (e.g., exclusion from social events), professional (e.g., losing a job or promotion), legal (e.g., prosecution or fine), or violent (e.g., assault) consequences, whether in-person or remotely (e.g., by phone or online), whether the feared consequences come from state or non-state sources.

[31] Student responses to these three questions were incorporated into a school’s overall score for the College Free Speech Rankings.

[32] ​​Gibson, J. (2006). Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer’s  Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties .  Perspectives on Politics, 4, 21–34; Stouffer, S. A. (1955).  Communism, conformity, and civil liberties: A cross-section of the nation speaks its mind. Transaction Publishers; Sullivan, J. L.; Piereson, J.; & Marcus, G. E. (1979). An alternative conceptualization of political tolerance: Illusory increases 1950s–1970s.  American Political Science Review, 73, 781–794; Sullivan, J. L.; Piereson, J.; & Marcus, G. E. (1982).  Political Tolerance and American Democracy . University of Chicago Press.

[33] Student responses to two of the eight speakers — those who expressed that “Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security” or that “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — were not incorporated into a school’s overall score for the College Free Speech Rankings. 

[34] Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S. (March 12, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, Part 1: Campus free speech was in trouble in 2018, and the data shows it has gotten much worse. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-1 ; Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S (March 21, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, part 2: When it comes to free speech, the college kids are not alright. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-2 ; 

[35] Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S. (May 1, 2024. The skeptics were wrong, Part 3: Surveys on student attitudes toward free speech show alarming trends. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-3 . 

[36] Custer, S. & Lederman, D. (May 6, 2024). A Weekend of Arrests and Commencement Disruptions: Officers break up encampments at USC and Virginia; Vermont and Dickinson cancel speakers. Available online:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2024/05/06/weekend-arrests-and-commencement-disruptions-over-israel-gaza ; New York Times. (May 12, 2024). At Commencements, Protesters Deliver Messages in Many Ways. Available online:  https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/12/us/college-campus-protests .  

[37] Casey, M. & Shipkowski, B. (May 10, 2024). Police arrest dozens as they break up pro-Palestinian protests at several US universities. Available online:  https://apnews.com/article/mit-arizona-pennsylvania-campus-protests-encampment-police-7d9cd0a1f4ac7eaca41b38de798a2217 ; 

Fan, C., Kramer, M., & Duddridge, N. (May 2, 2024). Columbia, City College protests lead to nearly 300 arrests. NYC mayor blames "movement to radicalize young people." Available online:  https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-university-protests-nypd-arrests/ ; 

Lukianoff, G. (May 7, 2024). Campus Chaos: Navigating free speech, unrest, and the need for reform in higher education. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/campus-chaos-navigating-free-speech ; 

The New York Times. (June 17, 2024). Where Protesters on U.S. Campuses Have Been Arrested or Detained. Available online:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/pro-palestinian-college-protests-encampments.html . 

[38] Eduardo, A. (April 25, 2024). Texas tramples First Amendment rights with police crackdown of pro-Palestinian protests. More than 50 arrested after state police storm protestors at University of Texas at Austin.. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-tramples-first-amendment-rights-police-crackdown-pro-palestinian-protests ; 

Fisher, L. (May 3, 2024). UT’s War on Students: A peaceful protest spiraled when law enforcement showed up. Now the university has doubled down. Available online:  https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2024-05-03/uts-war-on-students/ . 

Lane, L. (April 30 2024). Fact check on statements from IU, ISP: Snipers, external participants, free speech. Available online:  https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/education/campus/2024/04/30/answering-questions-about-the-gaza-war-protests-in-ius-dunn-meadow/73503596007/ ; 

Sandweiss, E. (April 29, 2024). State police leader confirms rooftop sniper at IU protest, responds to excessive force accusations. Available online:  https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/state-police-leader-confirms-rooftop-sniper-at-iu-protest-responds-to-excessive-force-accusations ;

Washington, J. (March 19, 2024). ‘Winning war on woke higher education,’ Anti-DEI efforts continue, some minority students struggle. Available online:  https://www.kxan.com/news/winning-war-on-woke-higher-education-anti-dei-efforts-continue-some-minority-students-struggle/ .  

[39] The self-censorship component was introduced this year and is a composite score of responses to the three questions that are presented after self-censorship is defined. In previous years other questions were used to measure self-censorship and they were factored into the “Comfort Expressing Ideas” component.

[40] A full list of all the deplatforming incidents that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: 

The full Campus Deplatforming database is available on FIRE’s website at  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database . 

[41] A full list of all the scholar sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Scholars Under Fire database is available on FIRE’s website at https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire . 

[42] All data reported in this section reflect the Students Under Fire database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here:  https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025.

[43] Schools were not penalized for how they handled the encampment protests. As this report demonstrates, the  impact of the encampment protests on the campus speech climate is captured by responses to survey questions that ask students about their confidence in that their college administration protects speech rights on campus, their comfort expressing controversial political views, and how frequently they self-censor. Deplatformings that occurred during the encampment protests were also still included in the calculation of the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings.

[44] See: Using  FIRE’s Spotlight Database. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/using-fires-spotlight-database .  

[45] The Spotlight Database is available on FIRE’s website:  https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/ . 

[46] All data reported in this section reflect the Campus Deplatforming database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the deplatforming incidents that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Campus Deplatforming database is available on FIRE’s website at  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database . 

[47] Deplatforming campaigns that targeted multiple forms of expression (e.g., targeting multiple speakers at an event or targeting multiple pieces of artwork for removal) and that impacted the College Free Speech Rankings were counted as a singular incident.

[48] All data reported in this section reflect the Scholars Under Fire database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the scholar sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Scholars Under Fire database is available on FIRE’s website at  https://www.thefire.org/research/scholars-under-fire-database/ .

[49] FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database records all outcomes that occur as a result of a sanction attempt (e.g., investigation, suspension, or termination). FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings only penalizes schools for the most severe negative outcome (e.g., for a termination but not for placing a professor under investigation and/or suspension).

[50]  All data reported in this section reflect the Students Under Fire database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025. 

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email

• Global (EN)
• Albania (en)
• Algeria (fr)
• Argentina (es)
• Armenia (en)
• Australia (en)
• Austria (de)
• Austria (en)
• Azerbaijan (en)
• Bahamas (en)
• Bahrain (en)
• Bangladesh (en)
• Barbados (en)
• Belgium (en)
• Belgium (nl)
• Bermuda (en)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (en)
• Brasil (pt)
• Brazil (en)
• British Virgin Islands (en)
• Bulgaria (en)
• Cambodia (en)
• Cameroon (fr)
• Canada (en)
• Canada (fr)
• Cayman Islands (en)
• Channel Islands (en)
• Colombia (es)
• Costa Rica (es)
• Croatia (en)
• Cyprus (en)
• Czech Republic (cs)
• Czech Republic (en)
• DR Congo (fr)
• Denmark (da)
• Denmark (en)
• Ecuador (es)
• Estonia (en)
• Estonia (et)
• Finland (fi)
• France (fr)
• Georgia (en)
• Germany (de)
• Germany (en)
• Gibraltar (en)
• Greece (el)
• Greece (en)
• Hong Kong SAR (en)
• Hungary (en)
• Hungary (hu)
• Iceland (is)
• Indonesia (en)
• Ireland (en)
• Isle of Man (en)
• Israel (en)
• Ivory Coast (fr)
• Jamaica (en)
• Jordan (en)
• Kazakhstan (en)
• Kazakhstan (kk)
• Kazakhstan (ru)
• Kuwait (en)
• Latvia (en)
• Latvia (lv)
• Lebanon (en)
• Lithuania (en)
• Lithuania (lt)
• Luxembourg (en)
• Macau SAR (en)
• Malaysia (en)
• Mauritius (en)
• Mexico (es)
• Moldova (en)
• Monaco (en)
• Monaco (fr)
• Mongolia (en)
• Montenegro (en)
• Mozambique (en)
• Myanmar (en)
• Namibia (en)
• Netherlands (en)
• Netherlands (nl)
• New Zealand (en)
• Nigeria (en)
• North Macedonia (en)
• Norway (nb)
• Pakistan (en)
• Panama (es)
• Philippines (en)
• Poland (en)
• Poland (pl)
• Portugal (en)
• Portugal (pt)
• Romania (en)
• Romania (ro)
• Saudi Arabia (en)
• Serbia (en)
• Singapore (en)
• Slovakia (en)
• Slovakia (sk)
• Slovenia (en)
• South Africa (en)
• Sri Lanka (en)
• Sweden (sv)
• Switzerland (de)
• Switzerland (en)
• Switzerland (fr)
• Taiwan (en)
• Taiwan (zh)
• Thailand (en)
• Trinidad and Tobago (en)
• Tunisia (en)
• Tunisia (fr)
• Turkey (en)
• Turkey (tr)
• Ukraine (en)
• Ukraine (ru)
• Ukraine (uk)
• United Arab Emirates (en)
• United Kingdom (en)
• United States (en)
• Uruguay (es)
• Uzbekistan (en)
• Uzbekistan (ru)
• Venezuela (es)
• Vietnam (en)
• Vietnam (vi)
• Zambia (en)
• Zimbabwe (en)
• Financial Reporting View
• Women's Leadership
• Corporate Finance
• Board Leadership
• Executive Education

Fresh thinking and actionable insights that address critical issues your organization faces.

• Insights by Industry
• Insights by Topic

KPMG's multi-disciplinary approach and deep, practical industry knowledge help clients meet challenges and respond to opportunities.

• Advisory Services
• Audit Services
• Tax Services

Services to meet your business goals

Technology Alliances

KPMG has market-leading alliances with many of the world's leading software and services vendors.

Helping clients meet their business challenges begins with an in-depth understanding of the industries in which they work. That’s why KPMG LLP established its industry-driven structure. In fact, KPMG LLP was the first of the Big Four firms to organize itself along the same industry lines as clients.

• Our Industries

How We Work

We bring together passionate problem-solvers, innovative technologies, and full-service capabilities to create opportunity with every insight.

• What sets us apart

Careers & Culture

What is culture? Culture is how we do things around here. It is the combination of a predominant mindset, actions (both big and small) that we all commit to every day, and the underlying processes, programs and systems supporting how work gets done.

Relevant Results

Sorry, there are no results matching your search., kpmg report: navigating the shifting landscape of research credit audits.

Developments in the research credit area, including recent guidance and case law

In recent years, the IRS has increased its focus on section 41 research credit claims, leading to a rise in the number of examinations. The IRS Large Business and International (LB&I) Division announced a new campaign in 2017 specifically targeting the research credit. The IRS has also been relatively successful in recent years in litigating research credit cases.

Read a  January 2024 report * [PDF 3.1 MB] prepared by KPMG LLP tax professionals that focuses on developments in the research credit area, including recent guidance and case law.

*This article originally appeared in  Tax Notes Federal  (January 22, 2024) and is provided with permission.

The KPMG name and logo are trademarks used under license by the independent member firms of the KPMG global organization. KPMG International Limited is a private English company limited by guarantee and does not provide services to clients. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 3712, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.

Thank you for contacting KPMG. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

Contact KPMG

By submitting, you agree that KPMG LLP may process any personal information you provide pursuant to KPMG LLP's Privacy Statement .

Job seekers

Visit our careers section or search our jobs database.

Use the RFP submission form to detail the services KPMG can help assist you with.

Office locations

International hotline

You can confidentially report concerns to the KPMG International hotline

Press contacts

Do you need to speak with our Press Office? Here's how to get in touch.

Goldman Sachs Research

Our weekly newsletter with insights and intelligence from across the firm

By submitting this information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Goldman Sachs and accept our  privacy policy . You can opt-out at any time.

Unbowed by Jan. 6 Charges, Republicans Pursue Plans to Contest a Trump Defeat

Mr. Trump’s allies are preparing to try to short-circuit the election system, if he does not win.

Nearly four years ago, Mr. Trump’s attempt to challenge the election results was chaotic and improvised. This year, his allies are systematically searching for any vulnerability in the nation’s election system. Credit... Scott McIntyre for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Jim Rutenberg and Nick Corasaniti

• July 13, 2024

The Republican Party and its conservative allies are engaged in an unprecedented legal campaign targeting the American voting system. Their wide-ranging and methodical effort is laying the groundwork to contest an election that they argue, falsely, is already being rigged against former President Donald J. Trump.

The campaign involves a powerful network of Republican lawyers and activist groups, working loosely in concert with the Republican National Committee. Many of the key players were active in Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

But unlike the chaotic and improvised challenge four years ago, the new drive includes a systematic search for any vulnerability in the nation’s patchwork election system.

Mr. Trump’s allies have followed a two-pronged approach: restricting voting for partisan advantage ahead of Election Day and short-circuiting the process of ratifying the winner afterward, if Mr. Trump loses. The latter strategy involves an ambitious — and legally dubious — attempt to reimagine decades of settled law dictating how results are officially certified in the weeks before the transfer of power.

At the heart of the strategy is a drive to convince voters that the election is about to be stolen, even without evidence. Democrats use mail voting, drop boxes and voter registration drives to swing elections, they have argued. And Mr. Trump’s indictments and criminal conviction are a Biden administration gambit to interfere with the election, they claim.

“As things stand right now, there’s zero chance of a free and fair election,” Mike Howell, a project director at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said at an event this week. “I’m formally accusing the Biden administration of creating the conditions that most reasonable policymakers and officials cannot in good conscience certify an election.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Medical research articles from across Nature Portfolio

Medical research involves research in a wide range of fields, such as biology, chemistry, pharmacology and toxicology with the goal of developing new medicines or medical procedures or improving the application of those already available. It can be viewed as encompassing preclinical research (for example, in cellular systems and animal models) and clinical research (for example, clinical trials).

Breast cancer blocked by multiple natural lines of defence

Cancer-promoting mutations are common in healthy tissue but rarely lead to tumour formation. A study of the mouse mammary gland reveals three protective mechanisms that limit the ability of cells to give rise to cancer.

• Biancastella Cereser

The immune system of trans men reveals how hormones shape immunity

What drives sex biases in the immune system? Examining how gender-affirming therapy affects the molecular profiles of immune cells of trans men reveals how hormones underpin immune responses.

• Margaret M. McCarthy

Skull bones harbour immune cells that are poised to target brain tumours

The human brain is usually considered to be beyond the reach of most immune cells. However, analysis of people who have brain tumours has revealed tumour-targeting T cells of the immune system in skull bones near the cancer site.

• Justin D. Lathia

Related Subjects

• Drug development
• Epidemiology
• Experimental models of disease
• Genetics research
• Outcomes research
• Paediatric research
• Preclinical research
• Stem-cell research
• Clinical trial design
• Translational research

Latest Research and Reviews

Job satisfaction and associated factors among rural health extension workers in Buno Bedele Zone South West Ethiopia

• Daniel Nega
• Samuel Ejeta Chibsa
• Geremew Tolasa

Safety and efficacy of subthreshold micropulse yellow laser for persistent subretinal fluid after scleral bucking a randomized clinical trial

Assistance time and peripheral oxygen saturation in prehospital emergency data as predictors of covid19 hospital outcomes.

• Eduardo Fernandes
• Bernardo Maia da Silva
• Fernando Almeida-Val

Fluid bolus increases plasma hyaluronan concentration compared to follow-up strategy without a bolus in oliguric intensive care unit patients

• Maija Serlo
• Nina Inkinen
• Suvi T. Vaara

Revisiting the role of computational neuroimaging in the era of integrative neuroscience

• Alisa M. Loosen

Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility

• Hamed Ekhtiari
• Mehran Zare-Bidoky
• Martin P. Paulus

News and Comment

Phase II trial of elotuzumab with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for daratumumab-refractory multiple myeloma

• Ricardo D. Parrondo
• Betsy R. LaPlant
• Sikander Ailawadhi

Blood neurofilament light chain measurements in adults with CNS histiocytic neoplasms

• Samantha A. Banks
• Paul Decker
• W. Oliver Tobin

Transparent mice made with light-absorbing dye reveal organs at work

A method that renders skin temporarily see-through could offer researchers a non-invasive way to look inside the bodies of live mice.

• Jude Coleman

“Clone-specific” antibody-drug conjugates: an innovative strategy in the treatment of T-cell cancers

• Dennis Jungherz
• Philipp Lückemeier
• Marco Herling

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies