Expression

Expression

Home
Free Speech Dispatch
James Kirchick
Jacob Mchangama
So to Speak
Explainers
Data
Archive
Newsletters
About
Data

How targeting scholars for speech leaves lasting scars

Nate Honeycutt's avatar
Nate Honeycutt
Oct 28, 2025
44
7
7
Share
Cross-posted by Expression
"Attempts to censor and cancel some professors chills all of them, and that undermines society’s goal of having a higher education system dedicated to the fearless pursuit of truth. But apart from those who have been canceled or the advocates who have tried to help them, most of us don’t know what the experience of being targeted looks like from the inside. Now, FIRE has surveyed over 200 brave scholars about their experience being targeted for their speaking, teaching, or research. Seeing how the experience continues to impact their decisions to speak out, even years later, gives a rare insight into how our use of higher education as a partisan football discourages those who know the most about their areas of expertise from being willing to share it in the future."
-
Greg Lukianoff

When a scholar is targeted for their expression, the story rarely ends when the headlines fade. The formal investigations wrap up and the social media outrage may die down, but for many, the experience marks a permanent shift in how they think, speak, and interact with others in public. Such cases have profound implications for academic freedom and the state of campus free speech in higher education.

According to FIRE’s Sanctioned Scholars report, nearly three-quarters of the scholars we asked said they would not change anything they said or did that led to being targeted. But many also said that, in other ways, they are now altering their speech.

Almost a third of all the scholars we surveyed said they are now less likely to express views like the ones for which they were targeted, and many say they now speak more cautiously with faculty, administrators, and even students. Fewer conservative scholars say they now self-censor with students, but there weren’t enough conservatives and liberals in the sample to be able to say whether the gap is real — or just noise.

In other words, even once the punishment or heat of controversy has passed, the pressure to stay silent or watch one’s words lingers on. This pressure to self-censor doesn’t seem to impact most scholars’ actual research or publications, as few say they hold back in these areas. But even if only one in 10 does, that’s not nothing.

Extrapolated to the entire Scholars Under Fire database, that’s over 170 scholars — and that’s just the ones we know were targeted. But for a little more than one in three scholars, things have changed. They’re now avoiding certain topics in class or online — and for some, that caution even spills over into their personal lives.

This partially mirrors the wider shift in academia. FIRE’s 2024 faculty survey found that more than one in four professors now say they hold back in conversations with administrators, colleagues, or students. And the pressures on campus speech keep intensifying, particularly from government actors.

When scholars are afraid to speak — or punished for doing so — something is lost. The Sanctioned Scholars report shows the toll this takes: sleepless nights, stress, being shunned at work, even losing one’s job. But it also shows how people change after. As one professor admitted, “I continue sometimes to be shocked at what some people will say apparently without fear of retaliation, and I suppose I envy them.”

Others said they now avoid certain topics, rewrite syllabi, scale back public engagement — some even avoid going out in public at all.

The result is not a healthy climate for campus free speech or open inquiry. It’s the opposite. Free expression has always required courage — courage to speak, to listen, to defend. If academics lose that courage, they will fail the very mission of the academy. And if that happens, it won’t be the academy’s critics who silence it. It’ll be the academy itself, sheepishly retreating from its own principles.

Expression is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

44
7
7
Share
Nate Honeycutt's avatar
A guest post by
Nate Honeycutt
Experimental social psychologist studying higher education, focusing on topics including political bias, free speech, scientific integrity, and ideological diversity.

No posts

© 2025 FIRE
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start your SubstackGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture