FIRE in the NYT! ‘Authoritarians in the Academy’ hits shelves! Massie strikes back! VICTORY at Texas A&M! & more!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (8/24/25)
Stories of the week
A Critic of Universities Is Rallying to Defend Them in the Trump Era (NYT) by Jennifer Schuessler & Vimal Patel
The group, long a scourge of university administrators, also finds itself working to help protect schools it has criticized in the past from new threats. When FIRE filed a brief in support of Harvard’s lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s cuts in research funds, the group noted its own record as “a leading critic of Harvard’s inconsistent and insufficient protection of free speech and academic freedom.”
FIRE Senior Scholar of Global Expression
(who curates ERI’s own “International free speech stories of the week” section!) has been writing about international censorship for years and has truly become one of the foremost experts on the topic. That’s why, back in 2021 (or was it 2022?) I encouraged her to write a book to raise awareness about the troubling climate for speech around the world which regular readers of ERI will know has, if anything, only worsened in recent years. The result, Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech, hit shelves on Tuesday. Order your copy today!
Surprise leaders tried to make an example of me. Voters should return the favor (AZCentral) by Rebekah Massie
This behavior won’t stop unless we fight back — and we have. The free speech watchdog organization FIRE stepped in to defend the people of Eastpointe, Edison and Kyle. And thankfully, they’ve supported me, too.
This week in ERI
America’s Campuses: The Next Frontline Against Authoritarianism (cross-posted w/
) byIntroducing the First Cohort of AI x Truth-Seeking Grant Winners (cross-posted w/ the
)
This week in
The vibe shift in campus censorship by
&The findings against Harvard are a blueprint for a National Campus Speech Code by
There’s nothing new about the idea that we need to ban the expression of certain opinions in order to fight discrimination — that’s the reasoning behind a vast number of speech codes that FIRE has fought since 1999. The new, destructive twist on this is what we at FIRE call the cumulative theory of harassment. That’s the notion that while myriad individual instances of expression by unrelated individuals may be fully protected under the First Amendment, they can together create a cumulative harm, even to those not present and not targeted by the speech, that justifies overriding the Constitution.
This week in FIRE’s blog
“FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler’s unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,” said FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney JT Morris. “This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.”
FIRE in the press!
Who Is a ‘Journalist’ in Gaza? (WSJ) by
How to protect your university against authoritarianism (Times Higher Education) by
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup
Fifth Circuit orders West Texas A&M ban against on-campus drag shows preliminarily enjoined, reversing district court’s ruling that the performances are not speech
On review of denial of a preliminary injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a ban West Texas A&M University imposed on student organizations (or anyone) holding drag shows on campus violated LGBTQ+ student group Spectrum WT's First Amendment right to free speech. The group was in the last stages of organizing, advertising, and ticketing its March 2023 drag-show fundraiser on campus when university President Walter Wendler canceled it just 11 days out, announcing by community-wide email that “West Texas A&M … will not host a drag show on campus,” based on Wender’s view that they discriminate against women. Spectrum engaged FIRE to sue Wendler and other A&M officials in the federal court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking to preliminarily enjoin the ban as a violation of the group’s First Amendment rights. Spectrum ultimately held the 2023 show off-campus and proceeded with the case to allow future shows—only to have the trial court hold drag is not inherently expressive, so restrictions on it do not implicate the First Amendment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding the First Amendment protects drag just like other expressive works, and explicitly rejected that performing in drag is mere non-expressive conduct. It cited longstanding precedent that activity is expressive so long as it is “evident that conveying some message, even if nearly opaque or perhaps smeared, was intended,” and held drag qualifies insofar as “the message sent by parading on a theater stage in the attire of the opposite sex” in support of the LGBTQ+ community would be “unmistakable” to its audience. The court also held that, because the university generally permits all other expressive events in its campus theater, it could not constitutionally single out drag performances to keep them off stage.
Bonus/Update: Converting last week’s juxtaposition into a triptych, in Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch, the federal court for the Southern District of Mississippi preliminarily enjoined portions of the state’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools involving bars against discussing “divisive concepts” related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin, holding the law “is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom.”
International free speech stories of the week
UK backs down in Apple privacy row, US says (BBC) by Zoe Kleinman
Artist and his wife flee to UK after China forces censorship of their exhibition in Bangkok: Report (IANS)
Hong Kong democrat Jimmy Lai given heart monitor for final stretch of marathon trial (Reuters) by Jesse Pang & James Pomfret
Podcast of the week
Anyone who’s spoken with me for even five minutes probably knows how interested I am in the many connections there are between free speech and science, especially psychology and neuroscience. This goes back to my transformative experience with CBT and, through that, my observation (which
& I make the case for in Coddling) that because a generation of students had essentially learned reverse-CBT, they had adopted the mental habits of anxious and depressed people. It’s also why I was thrilled for the opportunity to collaborate with Dr. Barbara Oakley on the online course for Coursera, ‘Speak Freely, Think Critically: The Free Speech Balance Act.’ All that’s to say, I was delighted to have the chance to sit down with renowned neuroscientist on his Inner Cosmos podcast to get to the bottom of what exactly brain science has to do with free speech. I think the listener will be able to tell how much we both enjoyed the discussion.