Republicans Host Campus Free Speech Roundtable

WASHINGTON, D.C.—As a young Black woman from the blue state of Illinois, Jasmyn Jordan said hearing former vice president Mike Pence speak at a Young Americans for Freedom event  at the University of Iowa her freshman year marked one of the first times she witnessed a prominent speaker who shared her beliefs and values. 

Seeking a safe space to express her views, Jordan quickly joined her campus chapter of the conservative student organization. But as she rose in the ranks from local secretary to YAF national chairwoman, she realized that on college campuses, “conservative values did not get the same playing field as more left-leaning ones.”

“As soon as I joined the organization, I was attacked by Black students because they felt like I couldn’t be Black and a woman and a conservative at the same time,” Jordan, now a senior, told Inside Higher Ed. “They were calling me a white supremacist, a token, a bigot. And that really opened my eyes to see how conservatives are attacked simply for expressing their constitutional rights.”

This kind of “doxxing,” as Jordan described it, was what led her to speak about the climate of campus free speech before a group of congressional Republicans Wednesday. (Doxxing is defined as “to publicly publish private information about [someone] especially as a form of punishment or revenge.”)

The roundtable discussion, hosted by North Carolina representative Gregory Murphy, reinforced the GOP’s argument that colleges and universities across the country have become liberal bastions that do not welcome intellectual diversity.

In addition to Jordan and YAF, the panel consisted of representatives from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the Jefferson Council for the University of Virginia, Speech First and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA), all right-leaning groups. Representative Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and Representative Burgess Owens of Utah—both Republicans—joined Murphy.

Murphy said he invited Representative Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the education committee, but Scott declined. However, a spokesperson from the office of House committee Democrats said Scott never received an invitation.

A few nonpartisan organizations also attended, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse.

“The principle of academic freedom was always the hallmark of European universities and colleges, and that carries over here to the United States,” said Murphy, who has served on the board at his alma mater, Davidson College. “But sadly enough, over the last 10 or 15 years, it has become a monolithic thought. If you do not think that, you’re not part of the group or you’re actually something lesser.”

Ending ‘Political Litmus Tests’

Foxx commended Murphy for hosting the annual event for a fourth year, saying, “It seems crazy we have to continue to do this, but we are.”

She pointed to the End Woke Higher Education Act, which passed the House in September, as an example of Republican efforts to end the use of “political litmus tests” and restrict accreditors from creating standards based on “ideology, belief, or viewpoint,” which she said will protect academic freedom. But Democrats and university lobbyists have sharply disagreed, arguing the bill would actually be “dangerous for students and colleges.”

Foxx also highlighted the College Cost Reduction Act, arguing it would build upon the End Woke Act and further strengthen intellectual diversity if Republicans can muster the final four votes they need to push the legislation through the House before the end of the year. The CCRA has also received significant pushback from colleges.

Protecting campus free speech “shouldn’t even be something we have to pass legislation on,” Foxx said. “You’d think from our very wonderful Constitution that would be the case, but it isn’t.”

Panelists focused largely on campus diversity, equity and inclusion programs; critical race theory; and, as John Craig, chairman of Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse, put it, an “oppressed versus oppressor mindset in classrooms.” They argued all three create a chilling effect for conservative students and faculty.

Ed Yingling, co-founder of AFSA, described universities and their inclusion programs as “indoctrination camps.”

Thomas Neale, president of the Jefferson Council, echoed Yingling, pointing to conflicts over the way UVA’s institutional history is portrayed as an example of how DEI stifles conservative thought.

Some UVA constituents believe the institution, founded by Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner, was built upon systemic racism, and argued during the Black Lives Matter movement of 2020 that DEI programs were a necessary response. But Neale said he and the council “vehemently disagree,” instead describing the institutional DEI framework as “bureaucratic mandates.”

“We are not a group of disgruntled alumni seeking to return our alma mater to the good old days,” he said. “Rather, we insist they no longer be run by zealots who disdain encouraging multiple viewpoints.”

No left-leaning panelists attended the roundtable. But Paulette Granberry Russell, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, watched a live stream of the event and told Inside Higher Ed by email, “It is disingenuous to suggest that the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion work in higher education are contrary to the values and rights upheld by the First Amendment.”

“You cannot have free speech until you create the conditions that allow everyone to feel as though they are able to speak up equally,” she wrote.

While much of the discussion seemed to fall along the Republican Party line, one panelist noted that ultimately, the climate of concern about free speech on campus is not limited to conservatives.

“Free speech is not a partisan issue. It is not something that should be reduced to liberals and conservatives,” said Kenny Xu, executive director of Davidson’s civil discourse center. He pointed to data from a recent FIRE survey showing that 70 percent of students feel uncomfortable disagreeing with a professor in class. “I can assure you that 70 percent of students are not conservative,” he said.

Tyler Coward, FIRE’s lead counsel for government affairs, added that colleges and universities walk a difficult line, with obligations both to protect free speech and to ensure that students aren’t subject to harassment and discrimination, regardless of identity or political viewpoint. But the Supreme Court has ruled that speech only loses its First Amendment protection when it is so “severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit,” he said.

He urged lawmakers to continue encouraging colleges and universities to adopt institutional neutrality statements and to provide greater free speech training for all members of the campus community.

“It’s really easy to make fun of students when they react poorly to ideas they don’t like, but they’re also trained to do that,” he said. “Providing them the resources to learn how to engage and not call for censorship immediately … those skills will not only benefit their college experience but once they graduate and enter our workforce.”