Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

House Democrats and Republicans Clash over Free Speech in Higher Education

While both sides of the aisle agree the issue of free speech is paramount, they disagree on whose speech is suppressed.

News

House Democrats and Republicans Clash over Free Speech in Higher Education

Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, addresses the chamber in front of a portrait of George Miller.

(Matthew Junkroski / MEDILL)

WASHINGTON — Witnesses and representatives sat in silence as Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, spoke about how universities should strive for intellectual diversity and introduce controversial ideas. Rep. Alma S. Adams, D-N.C., agreed with his rhetoric, but went on to criticize her Republican colleagues for standing in the way of free expression.

“Unfortunately, what we often see, especially in hearings like this, is not a good faith effort to strike that balance, but a selective narrative,” Adams said. “My colleagues on the other side of the aisle frequently claim that there’s a free speech crisis on college campuses, arguing that universities lack viewpoint diversity and silence certain perspectives.”


Over the course of the hour-long hearing on Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans jabbed at each other, representing opposing ideas of what counts as suppressing students’ freedom of speech.

Democrats criticized the Trump administration for withholding funding from universities that failed to follow the president’s policies, such as his ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Democrats also bemoaned the administration’s crackdown on free speech for noncitizen students. Republicans, meanwhile, spoke about how universities have suppressed conservative voices by allegedly refusing to hire conservative professors. They also said conservative students have to self-censor, and universities deny funding to right-leaning student organizations.

The hearing marked the latest clash on higher education freedom of speech ideals in the federal government following the Trump administration’s crackdown on university grant funding in response to university diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and investigations into alleged antisemitism.

The Republican House majority meant that House Republicans were responsible for choosing most of the witnesses. Of the four witnesses, two came from right-leaning organizations, representing the Alliance Defending Freedom and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Only one witness represented a left-leaning organization: the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., said the discussion on freedom of speech acted as a distraction from the crisis of higher education affordability, which she said was a larger issue.

“That’s what we should be having a hearing about, how to make colleges affordable,” Bonamici said. “But instead, my colleagues are continuing to villainize institutions of higher education.”

Bonamici read off a list of words the Trump administration removed from government websites, including words like “women”, “gender”, “sex”, and “immigrants”.

Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., said colleges had “weaponized recognition and fee processes against student groups they didn’t like.” He cited a 2020 lawsuit against California State University San Marcos, which alleged that the college awarded its LGBTQA Pride Center $296,498 for its activities. Meanwhile, it denied a recognized pro-life group’s $500 funding request for a speaker.

“This is just one clear example of how many colleges and universities show ideological preferences and funding with no transparency or how funding decisions were approved or denied,” Harris said.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., asked a witness for advice on how to encourage universities to create campuses that welcome all views.

“Having this free expression should be joyful… But it’s become so politically us against them without the acceptance that they might be right occasionally,” Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-CA, said, emphasizing the “occasionally” part of his sentence to his Democrat colleagues.

As the only witness from the left, Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney at the ACLU, said, while students of all political opinions send in freedom of speech complaints to the ACLU, he focused on how the Trump administration has targeted blue states with legislation affecting freedom of speech.

Topics targeted by the Trump administration have included discussion of race, gender, climate change, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Within the last year, the administration’s efforts resulted in over 300 higher education institutions dismantling their diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The president’s executive actions also prevented transgender women’s participation in collegiate sports and targeted pro-Palestine protestors.

“What we're really seeing most in our country at the moment are efforts to prohibit the teaching of particular ideas, whether it's in K-12 or in higher education, and this sort of direct government censorship should not be lost in the discussions around self-censorship or discomfort around sharing conservative views in higher education institutions,” Sykes told Medill News Service after the hearing.

After the hearing, the committee published a recap that focused on three of the four witnesses, omitting any mention of the ACLU representative.

The recap’s conclusion said: “Too many universities have abandoned their mission to encourage students to think for themselves. Committee Republicans are working to hold colleges accountable and to protect students’ First Amendment rights, ensuring that higher education remains a place where ideas can be tested, challenged, and debated openly.”

Matthew Junkroski is a graduate student at Northwestern University.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less