The Unholy Alliance: How college administrators and students unite to silence speakers

New data on the worst two years of deplatforming in campus history

Last month Olivia Krolcyzk, a women’s rights advocate and ambassador with the Riley Gaines Center, was scheduled to give a talk at the University of Washington titled “Protect Women from Men: The Threat of the Trans Agenda,” at an event organized by the campus Turning Point USA chapter.

The event never happened.

Just as it was about to begin, some student protesters became disruptive. One of them pulled the fire alarm. Windows were broken and objects, including noisemakers, were thrown into the room. Krolczyk and members of the Turning Point USA chapter barricaded themselves inside until they were escorted out by university police and security.

This week, Krolcyzk filed a Title IX complaint against the University of Washington with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights as a result of the disruption and cancellation of the event.

Despite the chaos, University of Washington spokesperson and Assistant Vice President for Communications Victor Balta contends that “the TPUSA organizers made the choice to suspend the event.” In a statement sent to The Center Square, “The Jason Rantz Show,” and other outlets who reached out for comment, Balta said that “[i]nformed discussion and debate are encouraged on our campus, however, it is clear that presenters and disruptors are, in some cases, seeking to antagonize one another in ways that provide dramatic content for their social media feeds,” and that Krolcyzk was “excited” that the event got shut down.

In other words, according to the University of Washington, the fault lies with Krolcyzk, Turning Point USA, and the individual protesters. “Those seeking to disrupt and shut down speakers are ultimately responsible,” Balta noted, “and will face legal and disciplinary action if they are identified.”

If.

We aren’t holding our breaths.

We’ve both written a lot about how hostility to freedom of expression on college and university campuses has grown and intensified over the past decade. One thing that tends to go unacknowledged is that, during this time period, a tacit unholy alliance between administrators and students has emerged. In this piece, we’ll explore how this alliance has contributed to a record-breaking surge in deplatforming attempts on American college and university campuses over the past two years.

Campus deplatforming has gotten worse over the last decade, and broken records these last two years

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), where we both work, maintains a Campus Deplatforming Database which tracks the outcomes of attempts to have speakers and performers (e.g., comedians, musical acts) disinvited from campus, to get play performances or movie screenings canceled, and to alter, censor, or remove artwork on American college and university campuses.

Here are some things you can glean from exploring this database in depth:

• Roughly a fifth of all entries occurred over the past two years: 167 in 2023 and 171 in 2024. That’s the equivalent of about one deplatforming attempt every other day.

• Student involvement in deplatforming attempts has dramatically increased. In 2013 and 2014 they were rarer, with students involved in 44 deplatforming attempts and student groups involved in only 10 across those two years. Over the past two years, however, students were involved in 157 of these deplatforming attempts, and student groups were involved in 98 of them — or two to three a week.

• About a third of all attempted disruptions recorded since 1998 (the first year for which our database has collected information) have occurred over the past two years (51 out of 151).

• About 40% of all substantial event disruptions recorded since 1998 have occurred over the past two years (80 out of 196).

What’s worse, student attempts to disrupt speaking engagements or performances have also become more common. A decade ago, in 2013 and 2014, FIRE recorded six attempted disruptions that involved students, while student groups were involved in only two. Over the past two years, 30 attempted disruptions involving students have been recorded — a five-fold increase. Student groups have been involved in 24 during that same period — a twelve-fold increase.

The story is similar for “substantial event disruptions,” a term that primarily encapsulates shoutdowns of speakers and performers and vandalism of artwork. While this category also includes some cases where a college or university relocated an event to a smaller venue with little notice or charged excessive security fees to host an event, it is more likely than not that any student involvement in a substantial event disruption means there was a shoutdown or the abrupt ending of an event in progress. This is because students — with the exception of the student government — have little-to-no influence over where an event is held or how much to charge for security.

In 2013 and 2014, students were involved in just two substantial event disruptions, while student groups were not involved in any. Over the past two years, however, students have been involved in 53 substantial event disruptions — a 26 fold increase! — while student groups have been involved in 26 — which is technically an infinite increase, since the number a decade ago was zero.

The explosion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a flashpoint of campus controversy has made this festering problem worse, but it is not solely responsible for the increase in disruptions over the past two years. For instance, each of the incidents below occurred in the past few years:

• In March of 2023, law students at Stanford University interrupted Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan’s (a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit) prepared remarks at a Federalist Society sponsored event with almost nonstop shouting and heckling because they were upset with his views on abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism. This was quite clearly coordinated with administrators who had previously met with the protesters for hours. Judge Duncan rightfully called out the setup and was shouted down for almost exactly 10 minutes, followed by an administrator getting up and reading a prepared speech. After she sat down the heckling continued, although not quite as intensely, until the event concluded early when it became clear it was pointless. Administrators often coordinate with students to disrupt ill-favored speakers, but this one was only so blazingly obvious because one DEI administrator, Tirien Steinbach, decided to make herself the star of the show. Greg and his co-author, Rikki Schlott, detailed this egregious example of admin-student collaboration in “The Canceling of the American Mind” (paperback due out April 29!).

• In April 2023, students at SUNY Albany disrupted a talk by Ian Haworth (an author, speaker, and podcast host) on freedom of speech and the First Amendment by blocking the podium and parading around the room, chanting “This is what free speech looks like” and “Trans rights are human rights.” A protester said, “We started chanting, and [the event’s organizers] kind of rolled over. They kept looking at administration, like, ‘I don’t know; fix this for us … They chose not to say anything back.” Haworth’s talk was relocated to another room, where protests continued outside.

• In May of 2023, Riley Gaines, a political activist and former NCAA swimmer, was forced to barricade herself (sound familiar?) in a room at San Francisco State University for three hours after student protesters heckled her during her speech, and accosted her afterward because of her views on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. The university’s president described the incident as a demonstration of the university’s “commitment to free speech while successfully hosting a speaker whose views do not align with the University’s commitment to inclusivity.”

• In September of 2023, Robbie George, a Princeton professor of politics and the director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals, was shouted down at Washington College by a small group of protesters who were upset over his views on abortion and sexuality and his status as a board member of the Heritage Foundation. The protesters shouted and played loud music during George's lecture, "The Truth-Seeking Mission of the University." Campus security did not intervene and the college president, who was in the audience, did not request that they do so. Other administrators encouraged the protesters to allow George to speak and to challenge him with questions when he completed his remarks. The protesters continued to disrupt the event and it ended before George could finish speaking.

• In September of 2024, Mark Krikorian, an activist and the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, was shouted down at Johns Hopkins University less than ten minutes into a speech on immigration by masked protestors who used their phones to set off alarms and other sounds. Some protesters began demanding Krikorian address their questions, calling him a “racist” and a “bigot” as he continued trying to speak. The Associate Vice Provost for Student Engagement and Dean of Students asked the protestors to demonstrate against Krikorian’s speech in a less disruptive manner, to no avail. Protestors also used stink sprays to fill the room with an unpleasant odor. Eventually the student organizers decided to end the event early so Krikorian could speak with interested students outside the room.

• In October of 2024, Students and faculty began yelling at panelists during the Q&A session of a discussion on “Saving Women’s Sports.” One faculty member allegedly rushed the stage and security escorted panelists out, ending the event early.

The common thread running through all of these incidents — aside from the conservative political views being expressed by the speakers — is that administrators either did nothing to stop such disruptions, thereby subtly encouraging them, or they could not regain control once the disruptions occurred. Speakers should not be barricading themselves in rooms or being escorted off-campus by police because of student protests. And a college or university president should not be bragging about successfully modeling a commitment to freedom of speech days after such things happen on their campus.

Administrators are a significant part of the problem

By sending a message to students that they will not face disciplinary action for shouting down a campus speaker — and even praising them in some cases — administrators have strengthened their tacit unholy alliance with their students over the past year. This mostly benefits administrators in their quest to suppress expression on campus. If they give in to student demands and cancel an event, speech is suppressed. If they don’t, but students then disrupt it anyway, speech is still suppressed. Heads, administrators win. Tails, free speech loses.

For instance, consider that since Oct. 7, 2023, administrators have either done nothing to stop or have not been able to regain control of a number of events featuring speakers affiliated in some way with Israel that were disrupted by students:

• Students at San Jose State called for Jeffrey Blutinger's (a Jewish professor at California State University, Long Beach) talk to be canceled. Administrators resisted this demand but moved the talk to a different location. On the day of the event, student protesters blocked entrances and chanted that “Zionists are not welcome” on campus. About 20 minutes into Blutinger’s speech, shoving started between protesters and police in the hallway outside the room. Blutinger was soon escorted off campus for his safety.

• After learning about an event featuring Israeli lawyer and former Israeli Defense Force member Ran Bar-Yoshafat, organized by Students Supporting Israel at Berkeley and the Berkeley Tikvah, university police decided to change the venue to one they considered more secure and deployed additional security. The police also asked Bar-Yoshafat to wear a hat when entering campus to hide his identity. A protest organized by a student group called Bears for Palestine marched to the venue chanting “Long live the intifada,” “Hey hey, ho ho, the occupation has got to go,” and “Killers on campus.” Once at the venue, protesters crowded the side entrances and smashed two windows and a door. Police then canceled the event. Four event attendees allege they were attacked by the protesters.

• Derek Kilmer, a member of the House of Representatives, was scheduled to give the annual Susan Resneck Pierce Lecture at the University of Puget Sound. Before Kilmer could begin his remarks, pro-Palestinian protesters entered the venue and took the stage, stamping their feet and using a bullhorn to chant slogans. Local police shut down the event.

• Asaf Peer, a professor of physics at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, was invited to give an open lecture at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas as part of a public physics symposium. Peer’s talk on black holes was interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters who entered the room with banners and flags. Peer attempted to engage the protesters, inviting them to remain and learn about black holes and then discuss the “unrelated issues” afterwards. The protesters refused and continued to disrupt the event. Organizers called campus police, who said they could not remove the protesters from the room and instead decided, along with the sponsoring faculty, to end the lecture by escorting Peer off-campus against his will.

• Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, was invited as the final speaker in the University of Washington’s War in the Middle East Lecture Series. The UW United Front for Palestinian Liberation organized a protest both outside the venue and in the hallways of the building. About 30 minutes into Kurtzer's talk, a protester began standing up and shouting over him. The protester was removed by security. About 15 minutes later a different set of protesters began chanting and holding signs up. These protesters were also escorted out. In total, Kurtzer and the event organizers experienced seven different disruptions before ending the event early.

• Mike Collins, a member of Congress, was repeatedly shouted at during a talk at the University of Georgia. Protesters told Collins he is a “bitch,” saying, “you’re dead right now, asshole,” and telling him he “voted for genocide” for about 20-30 minutes. Other protesters shouted at Collins about his support for Israel and his views on abortion and immigration. Collins ultimately finished his remarks and was then reportedly escorted off-campus by the campus police.

• As Shahar Peled, an Israeli Defense Force reservist began to give his remarks at Worcester State University he was repeatedly heckled, shouted over, and accused of “genocide.” After protesters were escorted out, a fire alarm was pulled and the building was evacuated for 20 minutes. Peled then attempted to resume his remarks, but the fire alarm was pulled twice more and the event concluded early.

• An event featuring multiple Israeli Defense Force soldiers ended early at the law school of Loyola Marymount University, after a law student in attendance shouted “Get the fuck out of here all you ugly ass little Jewish people in this bitch” during the Q&A. She refused to leave after administrators threatened her with disciplinary action (others in attendance applauded).

Administrators have also canceled a number of events following student complaints because of the speakers’ sympathies with the Palestinian cause:

• Rabab Abdulhadi, a professor and founding director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies Program at San Francisco State University, was disinvited by Syracuse University in the wake of the Oct. 7 attack, after a group of students, parents, and alumni petitioned the university to cancel the event. The petition garnered more than 1,800 signatures. Administrators canceled the talk due to “a sharp uptick in anti semitism, Islamophobia and abhorrent conduct threatening members of campus communities based on their identity,” and because of “safety concerns.”

• Abdulhadi was also disinvited from an event scheduled for Oct 7., 2024 at Wake Forest University, after a student-led petition with over 8,500 signatures demanded it, claiming the university “publicly threatened Jewish students” and “publicly supported and celebrated terrorists.”

• A few weeks after Oct 7., 2023, a panel on the creative future of food at Ohio State University was canceled because “it was not the right time to have conversations about a region at war” and, presumably, because one of the panelists was a Palestinian visual artist and filmmaker.

• An event at Barnard College and co-sponsored by a student group at Columbia University featuring Mohammed ell-Kurd — a pro-Palestinian activist, poet, and member of the campus deplatforming hall of fame — was canceled the day before it was scheduled to take place because of a Barnard College policy requiring any co-sponsored events with “outside organizations including Columbia-affiliated individuals, departments, and groups” to apply for approval at least five weeks prior to the scheduled programming.

• After students, student groups, off-campus activist organizations, and a member of Congress all petitioned the University of Pennsylvania to cancel (or move off campus) individual speakers from an on-campus literature festival celebrating Palestinian culture, Palestinian writer, poet, and professor Refaat Alareer’s speaking invitation was revoked.

• After being pressured by students and others — including Congress — to combat anti-Israel speech on campus, administrators at the University of Pennsylvania also asked a progressive Jewish student group to postpone a screening of the film “Israelism,” citing safety reasons. The university feared unrest because the film is critical of Israeli policy. The student group showed the film anyway, and the university then threatened the group with disciplinary action for doing so.

• The University of Southern California revoked valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s invitation to speak at commencement because of “substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement.” There was no evidence that the university received any threats or took any steps to secure the event short of canceling Tabassum's speech, and the cancellation appears to be motivated by Tabassum’s social media posts critical of Israel.

• Montclair State University withdrew approval and funding for a “Palestine Lives” event featuring numerous unidentified speakers because “a newly-formed outside organization, called New Jersey Students for Justice in Palestine, is now the host,” and that this group’s mission statement “goes well beyond advocacy for the Palestinian people,” containing “an explicit call to eliminate Zionism on our campuses and in our communities.”

This coordination between students and student groups with administrators is an unholy alliance, even if it is a loose and not very organized one. The fact is, many students are now begging administrators to suppress speech on their campuses, and in far too many cases, administrators are happy to oblige. The methods take different forms, such as citing “security concerns” or “inappropriate timing” to cancel events ahead of time, subtly endorsing a “heckler’s veto” or doing nothing to contain or prevent a predictable event disruption, and failing or refusing to mete out discipline after the fact — but in all cases the result is the same: speech is suppressed.

This alliance opens up a larger, different front in the campus speech wars. Administrators used to be the largest on-campus threat to free speech, but now they’ve been joined by students (and, sadly, sometimes even the faculty).

Remember: This can’t be an aberration

Reading this, you could be forgiven for thinking something like “Wow, this is a real problem. Students and administrators are screwing things up on campus. We gotta fix this so our institutions of higher education can get back to business as usual.”

The problem is, this is business as usual.

Consider, by analogy, the ugly fact that sexual assault is commonplace in prison. This is such a well-known and well-established fact in our society that we often joke about it. Movies, TV shows, and books use it as plot points. It’s often the subtext of sneers towards people we’re glad to see convicted of crimes. It’s also often stated out loud as something awful people will say they hope happens to certain people while in prison. This is something that actually, reliably happens, all the time, everywhere. We all know it, and we’re all used to it. The question at this point is: If this particular terrible behavior is so pervasive and taken for granted that everyone feels comfortable joking about it, and if we know that prisons across the country do little — if anything — to prevent it…at what point does it just become a formal part of the system?

You can argue that there’s a difference between failing to stop something and actively causing or wanting it to happen. And yes, of course you will be unlikely to find official school documents or protocols instructing students and administrators to engage in shoutdowns and deplatforming attempts. But at the end of the day, if it’s still happening — constantly, consistently, and in full view of everyone who could or should do something about it — and they do nothing effective to stop it, is there really a difference? At that point, the line between formal and informal policies fades into nonexistence.

The fact is that in our colleges and universities, administrators have been turning a blind eye to the rampant censorial behavior of students and student groups — and in many cases, they’ve done so intentionally. FIRE has been fighting against this stuff for a quarter of a century at this point, and after that much time dealing with shoutdowns, deplatformings, and other attacks on free speech on campus, it is hardly speculative to say that administrators play a key role in why these things happen.

As we’ve seen in cases like the shoutdown of Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, administrators have increasingly become active, public participants in these incidents. That particular (and shameful) event is the clearest example yet that this problem is deeply-rooted in higher education, and that administrators clearly coordinated the shout down with student protesters. Again, administrators met for hours in advance of the event. The shoutdown was exactly 10 minutes, followed by a prepared speech by a campus administrator admonishing Duncan and siding with the mob, followed by continued heckling until the event was canceled altogether.

We also mustn’t be fooled by the shifting methods employed by these groups. Deplatforming was the common method to deal with disfavored speech on campus, and incidents were steadily increasing up until about 2017. This may give the impression that something improved, but that would be false. As deplatforming attempts started to go down, full-on cancellation campaigns against professors went way up. And when that started to go down again, deplatformings went way up again.

Regardless of the precise methods, the overall problem has remained: Students, encouraged by and often in concert with administrators, have conspired to coerce political and ideological conformity on campus. That they toggle between tactics, and that they periodically shift their focus from professors to fellow students to speakers and back again, only sheds light on who they think needs the biggest reminder of the price for non-conformity at any given time.

But ensuring conformity is always the point, and the suppression of speech is the primary method for doing it. The unholy alliance between students and administrators is what gives that method its power and efficacy — and the unwillingness of these institutions to do anything about it sure makes it hard not to think the obvious: they know it’s happening, they like it, and they’ll keep helping it along.

SHOT FOR THE ROAD

I’m beyond thrilled to announce that I’ll be delivering a main stage talk at TED2025 in Vancouver. The message of my presentation will be how to convince young people — who have until recently been free speech’s strongest constituency — of the power and importance of free speech. I’ve been hard at work on my talk for weeks (shout-out to

Claire Lehmann

, Cloe Shasha, and

Bob Ewing

for all their help!), and I hope for it to make a big splash and reach new audiences around the globe!

https://tedtalks.social/greglukianoff