undergraduate research gwu

• Faculty & Staff

• Organizational Chart
• General Counsel
• Health Affairs and School of Medicine & Health Sciences
• Communications and Marketing
• Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
• The Office of Ethics, Compliance, and Risk
• Foggy Bottom Campus
• Mount Vernon Campus
• Virginia Science & Technology Campus
• Online & Virginia Academic Centers
• Undergraduate
• Schools & Colleges
• Academic Calendar
• Campus Life
• Internships & Career Services
• Athletics & Recreation
• Campus Health
• Arts & Culture

If it shapes our world,

we’re exploring it at GW.

Research 

The George Washington University is a global, comprehensive research institution and a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) . From our location in the heart of the nation’s capital, GW faculty and their students carry out cutting-edge research and scholarship in diverse fields. We partner with community-based organizations, city leaders, industry and our academic peers in the U.S. and around the world to investigate some of the world’s most complex challenges, including climate change, infectious diseases, education and health equity, trustworthy AI, gender-based violence, disinformation, cancer, financial literacy and more.

State-of-the-art research facilities, such as the  nanofabrication and imaging center  in our 500,000-sq-ft Science & Engineering Hall or our biosafety labs, help foster important discoveries and innovations.

GW Research Year in Review

In 2023, the GW community reached new heights of research excellence and impact. In this  GW Research Year in Review , we celebrate a number of highlights, from some of our top research stories to new initiatives tackling the STEM workforce, sustainability and more.

2023 Research Year in Review

Carnegie Classification signifying “very high research activity” among Higher Education Institutions

Chartered institutes spurring cross-disciplinary research, as well as dozens of school-based research centers

Highest total federal R&D expenditures of colleges and universities in the nation’s capital

Increase in total federal R&D expenditures since 2009

Research in the Nation’s Capital

Our location in the nation's capital means GW faculty and students have unparalleled access to experts, facilities and collections at some of the world’s pre-eminent research institutions. This includes federal research labs and world-class cultural institutions. With great proximity comes great possibility.  

GW & NASA GW's bilateral agreement with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center expands the university's reach into space exploration. With access to NASA labs, equipment and experts, GW faculty and students are helping advance space missions, including building astrophysics instrumentation for next generation telescopes. 

GW & Smithsonian  GW and the Smithsonian Institution have long partnered to advance knowledge, education and cultural enrichment. Not only do GW students have access to a wide range of internships within the Smithsonian complex, we collaborate together on joint research projects such as the  Slave Wrecks Project  and an exhibit on the  natural history of the cell phone . 

Building on Our Strengths

GW is building a strong STEM enterprise and integrating STEM competencies into areas of historic strengths such as public policy, law and international affairs to advance the public good. Our research enterprise is truly comprehensive.

Public Interest Technology :  Part of the Public Interest Technology University Network, GW combines historical strengths in fields like law, policy and international affairs with technology innovation to advance the field of public interest technology research.

Cybersecurity Law Initiative :  GW’s Cybersecurity Law Initiative brings together the law school’s nationally recognized strengths with expertise from across the university to evolve the field of cybersecurity law. 

Human-Technology Collaboration :  Drawing upon faculty and experts from education, data science, engineering, psychology, business, public health, and medical informatics, this doctoral program takes an interdisciplinary approach to education and research into how collaborations of people and machines shape the future.

Next Generation Scientists and Scholars

GW is training the next generation of scientists and scholars to be leaders in their fields. Undergraduates, graduate students and postdocs conduct pioneering research, publish in prestigious journals, present at academic conferences and innovate around their research. Each year, students have the opportunity to showcase their research at the  GW Research Showcase , which highlights the breadth of innovation and creativity conducted at the university across all disciplines.   

SEAS Students Design 3D-Printed Optical Mapping System

GW Professors, Students Present Findings on Race and Racism in the Marketplace at Paris Conference

GW Undergraduate Review: The premier, student-run publication of research from undergraduate students

“When I first started as an undergrad, I was truly amazed at how easy it was for me to get involved with research. I was able to work on a really cool project developing a new way to pace heart tissue using optogenetics in a way that is more non-invasive. For me to have the potential to have such an impact on the healthcare industry has been truly enlightening and motivating for me as a young research scientist.“

CHRISTIANNE CHUA  Biomedical Engineering

Solving Complex Challenges

At GW, our researchers are working across disciplines to solve complex challenges and address societal inequities and injustices, including through our more than 35+ cross-disciplinary institutes and dozens of school-based centers.

Institute for Data, Democracy & Politics

Systems engineers, physicists, political scientists,  public health experts, law experts and more investigate digital media’s influence on public dialogue and opinion from the spread of health misinformation and hate speech online to social media users’ electoral behavior.

Global Women's Institute

The Global Women’s Institute bridges research, education and action to advance gender equality, reduce violence and discrimination against women and girls, and identify effective solutions to improve the lives of women around the world.

Climate & Health Institute

The Climate & Health Institute is conducting policy-relevant and community-oriented research to advance an evidence-based global response by governments and stakeholders to mitigate the climate crisis and improve public health for all.

GW's Research Centers & Institutes

Innovation & Entrepreneurship

GW’s innovation ecosystem helps interested faculty and students consider the practical applications of their research and supports them throughout the innovation pipeline, from lean startup training to filing for patents and licensing technologies.

Largest collegiate entrepreneurship competition in the U.S. ( Times of Entrepreneurship )

Gross licensing income generated from GW inventions in FY20

New ventures created between 2017-2019

GW inventions disclosed in FY20. In addition, 25 patents were issued and 48 patents filed

GW Innovation Hub

GW's Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship leads the university's innovation and entrepreneurial training programs for faculty, students and entrepreneurs. As a partner institution in a $15M NSF I-Corps Hub serving the mid-Atlantic region, GW trains researchers and technologists on entrepreneurial principles and practices and gives them hands-on experience to explore the potential, real-world applications of their research and technologies.

GW New Venture Competition

GW's New Venture Competition is the largest collegiate entrepreneurship competition in the U.S. NVC helps students, faculty, staff and alumni develop, test and launch their own startups, businesses and social ventures through a one-of-a-kind, real-world educational experience. Each year, teams vie for cash and non-cash prizes totaling more than $500,000. 

Technology Transfer at GW

Whether it's  licensing a life-saving drug  or  plasma thruster technology  to power the next generation of spacecraft, GW's Technology Commercialization Office helps bring new technologies and discoveries to the marketplace. The office serves as a bridge between lab research, companies, entrepreneurs and investors, overseeing all aspects of technology commercialization at GW.

• Office of Innovation & Entrepreneurship
• Technology Commercialization Office

GW Research News

GW Research Magazine and the quarterly GW Research Newsletter highlights the latest in GW research, discovery and innovation through feature stories, research briefs, interviews with faculty experts and more.

• GW Research Magazine
• GW Research Newsletter

Research Administration & Resources 

GW's Office of the Vice Provost for Research works alongside our talented faculty to support cutting-edge research and scholarship across all stages of the research lifecycle. OVPR leads a number of initiatives and programs with the strategic aim of growing research capacity and boosting the impact of GW-led discovery and innovation.

• Office of the Vice Provost for Research

• Meltzer Center
• Support Psychology

Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Colloquium Series
• Alumni Outcomes
• Testimonials
• BA in Psychological & Brain Sciences
• BS in Psychological & Brain Sciences
• BS in Cognitive Neuroscience
• Combined BA/MA
• Student Resources
• PBS Undergraduate Events
• PhD in Applied Social Psychology
• PhD in Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience Ph.D. Alumni Testimonials

Undergraduate Student Research

• Research Funding
• Core Faculty
• Affiliated Faculty
• Doctoral Students & Postdoctoral Fellows
• Faculty Emeriti
• Making an Appointment
• Meltzer Center Services & Fees

In the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, it is never too early to start building research experience. The earlier a student gets involved with a research project, the more practice they will be able to develop.

Research can earn a student internship or course credit, build invaluable workplace experience and begin career-changing relationships with faculty. Each year, students showcase their research at the department’s poster session, and some undergraduates see their research teams’ work published in scientific journals.

"Joining a research lab early on was monumental in developing my vague interests into a passion."

Paul Scotti BA '17

Independent Research Projects 

In addition to completing required research participation for psychology majors, students are encouraged to contact faculty directly to learn more about current opportunities. Undergraduates can also search for open research assistant positions, fellowships and more at GW's Center for Undergraduate Fellowships and Research.

Center for Undergraduate Fellowships and Research

Student Research Funding

Undergraduate Research Requirement Guidelines

The research requirement is designed to give students hands-on experience with psychological research. Most of the concepts and facts covered in psychology courses have been tested through research; by becoming active members in the process, students have the opportunity to contribute to future findings. To meet the requirement, students must earn points of research credit by participating in a research study or writing reports about articles describing psychological research.

Students in Psychology 1001 are required to earn four points of research credit; students in Psychology 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2101 are required to earn three points of research credit for each course in which they are enrolled. Instructors in any other course may ask students to participate in research projects as a requirement or for extra credit. For the written report option, every acceptable report submitted at the end of the semester will receive one point of research credit. For the research participation option, students receive half a point of research credit for every half hour of participation. In the case of studies lasting less than half an hour, students will receive half a point of credit. Credits only count for the semester in which they were completed, meaning that students may not transfer credits from a previous semester.

Written Report Option

To complete this option, students must select articles from a list of acceptable journals, which are listed on this page and available through the GW Libraries website. The student then writes a two-page paper summarizing each article. Instructions for submitting can be found on the EMS page .

• Child Development
• Developmental Psychology
• Journal of Applied Psychology
• Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology
• Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
• Journal of Experimental Psychology
• Journal of Abnormal Psychology
• Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
• Journal of Personality
• Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
• Journal of Physiological Psychology
• Memory and Cognition
• Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
• Each report must be two pages, double-spaced.
• Students must turn in a photocopy of the first page of the article along with the summary.
• The summary must be in the student’s own words, indicating an understanding of the study. If the summary or major parts of it are lifted word for word out of the article, students will not receive credit.
• What was the major research question being asked?
• Why is this question worth answering
• Briefly, what sort of methods did they use?
• What conclusions did they draw from the study?
• Many articles in these journals include more than one study; students only need to summarize one study from each article if they choose multi-study articles.

Research Participation Option

Students use the Experiment Management System (EMS) to sign up for research studies and track their progress throughout the term. After a student participates in a study, the researcher will report participation to the EMS and provide the participant with a receipt. At the end of the semester, the EMS will report the credit that students have accumulated to their instructor.

Details on how to use the system and obtain participation receipts, participant rights and responsibilities and the process for awarding credit are explained on the EMS page. Questions about research participation? Email the subject pool administrator.

Enter the Experiment Management System  

• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• News & Events
• Research Areas
• Support Chemistry

Department of Chemistry

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Where We Are
• Seminar Series
• Prizes & Awards
• Alumni Outcomes & Reflections
• Strategic Plan 2019-2024
• ALEKS Chemistry Prep Course
• BA in Chemistry
• BS in Chemistry
• Combined BS/MFS in Forensic Chemistry
• Combined BS/MS in Environmental & Green Chemistry
• Minor in Chemistry
• Consortium Registration Form
• Transfer Credit Approval Form
• Advising & Tutoring
• American Chemical Society Certification
• MS in Chemistry
• MS Environmental and Green Chemistry Program: Partnerships within the Industry
• Exams & Dissertation
• PhD and MS in Green Chemistry Programs: Pre-application Form
• Teaching & Research Assistants

Undergraduate Research

• Graduate Research
• Facilities and Instrumentation
• Incident Report Form
• Safety Resources
• Chemistry's Cautionary Chronicles Newsletter
• Graduate Students & Postdocs
• Office Hours

Research brings students into contact with a variety of chemical literature, fosters a spirit of independence and inquiry, builds familiarity with complex instruments and technologies and helps develop sound judgment. Many students make connections in the lab that turn into professional opportunities and careers down the road.

Students majoring in American Chemical Society (ACS)-certified degrees must complete a minimum research requirement, but we strongly encourage all undergraduates to pursue lab opportunities as early as first year.

Interested in Undergraduate Chemistry Research? There's a Course for That!

Learn about cutting-edge chemistry research at GW and get started with research! CHEM 2199: Frontiers of Chemical Research  is a 1.0 credit hour seminar course that will introduce you to current research in the Chemistry Department. Each week, a different chemistry faculty member will present their research and answer questions. Toward the end of the semester, you will select a professor to engage with further to learn more about their research program and to shadow a researcher in their lab.

Offered in fall semesters. Prerequisite: CHEM 1112 or consent of the instructor. Contact Professor Meisel for more information.

"This fellowship allows me to continue my research regarding the development of a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry selected ion monitoring method to separate and detect nitazene analogs in drug residues from syringe samples. Nitazenes are a novel class of synthetic opioids that are more potent than fentanyl and have started showing up in the DC area."

Alexa Mehlman Madeleine Reines Jacobs Fellowship Recipient 2023

Prizes and Awards

The GWU Chemistry curriculum prepared me very well by equipping me with necessary problem-solving and critical-thinking skills for my future endeavors..

Rachel M. Taylor, DMD GW BS Chemistry '18

How Research Benefits You

As an undergraduate researcher, you will work side by side with graduate students and faculty in our light-filled modern labs.

Interdisciplinary Options

• Analytical chemistry
• Biological chemistry
• Environmental chemistry
• Inorganic chemistry
• Organic chemistry
• Physical chemistry
• Theoretical chemistry

Future Career Opportunities

• Graduate school
• Professional schools (health)
• Pharmaceutical R&D
• Chemical manufacturing industry
• Public service & nonprofit
• Business & entrepreneurship
• Communication & journalism

Get Involved

• Talk to your faculty  advisor or appropriate graduate students about your research interests and the potential openings, projects and requirements. Laying the groundwork early will ensure a good fit.
• Explore the website or our department newsletter  to learn about the research projects faculty members are currently engaged in.
• Talk to fellow undergraduates who are doing research to get a feel for what your day-to-day experience will be like in a research lab.
• Sign up to perform research as a volunteer or intern.
• Find a paid position with a faculty member.
• Enroll in research for credit (CHEM 4195 or 4195W) — required for majors pursuing ACS-certified degrees in chemistry or biochemistry.
• Apply for a summer research program as a rising junior or senior. Students earn a stipend to work under the chemistry faculty member of their choice.

For further guidance, contact your advisor or a member of our staff .

Research Course Requirements

An undergraduate research course, CHEM 4195 or 4195W, is required for certain majors. We recommend that students take the course for at least three credits over two semesters. The first semester (one credit) provides a transition into the research group and introduction to the methodology. In the second semester (two credits) students dive deeper into the project. The more time (and credits) spent on the research, the more useful the data will be.

The course culminates with a paper describing the methods and results of the project. The final paper should be a well written, comprehensive and properly documented report, regardless of the success of the research. Students are expected to deliver a final paper presentation.

• Undergraduate Resources
• Graduate Resources
• News & Events
• Support Biology
• Faculty & Research Staff

Department of Biological Sciences

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Alumni Outcomes
• GW Biology DEI Statement
• No Fossil Fuel Money Resolution
• BA in Biology
• BS in Biology
• BS in Neuroscience
• Minor in Biology
• Combined BS/MS in Biology
• Combined BS in Neuroscience/MS in Biology
• Service Learning & Sustainability
• Honors Program
• MS in Biological Sciences
• PhD in Biological Sciences
• Systematics, Evolution & Ecology Focus
• Cellular & Molecular Biology Focus
• Graduate Student Resources
• Research Facilities
• Wilbur V. Harlan Research Fellowship
• Weintraub Program
• Office Hours

Undergraduate Research Opportunities

An important part of the undergraduate experience for biology students takes place in the laboratory. As early as sophomore year, students can begin making groundbreaking discoveries alongside leading research faculty. Graduates who invest early in research projects are well positioned for competitive career options and advanced degrees in the sciences and medicine.

Harlan Undergraduate Research Program

Current first years, sophomores and juniors who have declared biology majors may apply for the Wilbur V. Harlan Research Fellowship program. Selected students are awarded a stipend to support independent research in a Biology Department lab. Students learn research techniques and methods and prepare a final poster session presentation.  

More About Harlan Fellowships

Tips for Finding Research Positions

Students interested in undergraduate research should contact specific faculty members directly via email. Before reaching out, students should review faculty biographies on the GW website and tailor their email to the recipient’s specific interests. Undergraduates are also welcome to reach out to researchers from other departments, including chemistry, physics, anthropology and the medical school.

Emails should be very brief, polished and organized. It should take a busy lab director no more than 30 seconds to read.

The initial email of interest should include:

• A description of the writer’s biology interests and the type of research opportunity desired
• Any lab experience, previous science classes and current GPA
• Year in school (which indicates how many years can be dedicated to a project)
• Availability (including summers)
• Whether a stipend will be needed
• Contact information
• A short recommendation from an instructor (optional)
• Attached résumé

Note: Students must fill out the Registration Transaction Form from the Office of the Registrar to register for independent study or other research credit. Questions regarding undergraduate research and this process should be sent to the Department of Biological Sciences at [email protected] .

Find a Biology Student Research Position

"[The biology lab] mimics the professional environment that I will soon be entering. It is incredibly unique and valuable to have a guided and structured undergraduate research experience!"

Phoebe Shaw 2018 Harlan Undergraduate Research Fellow

Department of Computer Science

School of Engineering & Applied Science

• Quick Facts
• Women in Engineering
• Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Resources
• JEDI Faculty Instructional Resources
• Second Major in Computer Science
• Minor in Computer Science
• Non-CS Majors
• Admission to Computer Science as a Second Major or a Minor 
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Curriculum Sheets
• Combined Programs
• MS in Computer Science
• MS in Cybersecurity in Computer Science
• MS in Data Analytics
• MS in Applied Computer Science
• Certificate: Gateway to Computer Science (Hybrid)
• Certificate: Computer Security & Information Assurance
• PhD in Computer Science
• MS Frequently Asked Questions 
• Academic Policies & Schedules
• Study Abroad
• Student Organizations
• Sarah Morin & Grant McClearn
• Monica Kavathekar & Caitlin Carfano
• Graduate Students
• Admissions & Financial Aid
• About Advising
• Meet Your Advisor
• Incoming Students
• Graduating Seniors
• Pre-Professional Advising
• Academic Support Services
• Undergraduate Ambassadors
• New Student Experience
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Career Services

Undergraduate Research

• National Professional Studies
• GW Innovation Center
• Student Resources
• Academic Integrity Policy
• Course Registration Information
• Faculty Directory
• AI/Machine Learning
• Algorithms and Theory
• Computer Security, Privacy and Cryptography
• Operating and Distributed Systems
• Multi-Disciplinary and Collaborative Research
• News Archives
• Event Archives
• Closed: Professor of Practice faculty position
• Closed: Two tenure-track faculty positions

A broad range of research opportunities for SEAS undergraduate students exists, both within our own SEAS labs and with faculty in other GW schools.  We encourage undergraduate students to seek out these opportunities by talking to their professors and to upperclassmen already engaged in research.  A good way to begin is by learning the labs that exist at SEAS.  The links below will help; they are sorted by major and area of research.

• Biomedical Engineering
• Civil Engineering   
• Computer Science  
• Electrical and Computer Engineering    
• Mechanical Engineering   
• Engineering Management and Systems Engineering

Tips for Finding Research Opportunities

Undergraduate research experiences offer the chance to learn first-hand, in collaboration with professors, how new knowledge is generated. There are many ways to get involved in research at GW:

• Review the tips provided by the  Center for Undergraduate Fellowships and Research  and the  Office of the Vice President for Research .
• Connect with student organizations like the  GW Undergraduate Review  or others listed in  GW Engage  to network with peers that have similar interests.
• Visit and bookmark  GW Student Research Commons  to learn about opportunities and events.
• Explore the  GW Student Employment talent management portal  and filter positions by “Time Spent on Research.”
• Reach out to faculty directly to learn more about their work and ask if they have opportunities to get involved. The Department of Biological Sciences has posted some  tips for starting these conversations .
• Search using the  GW Expert Finder  to learn about GW faculty research and publications.

This program allows undergraduates to highlight non-credited research experiences on their official GW transcript. The transcript notation recognizes important experiential learning and gives future degree programs and employers a more complete picture of a student’s background and interests. Contact  [email protected]  with questions about this opportunity. For more information about the transcript notation process and to submit a request click the button below:

Transcription Notion Webpage

The Summer Undergraduate Program for Engineering Research (SUPER) is a summer research fellowship for SEAS undergraduate students. SEAS undergraduate students interested in getting involved in research over the summer should contact a faculty member whose research interests align with their own to learn more about their work and to explore opportunities.

The SEAS Student Research & Development Showcase was founded in 2007 to help foster the growth of research development and entrepreneurship at SEAS. More than 120 students compete in this annual, school-wide R&D competition, presenting research posters and vying for prize money from our sponsors. SEAS encourages our undergraduate students to enter and learn from the competition. Visit the  SEAS Student R&D Showcase  website to learn more information.

GW Undergraduate Research Award

Deadline(s).

There are two different deadlines for submission. Students who apply in the fall and are not selected for funding may revise and resubmit their proposals in the spring.

Fall Deadline: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 at 11:59 p.m. EST

Spring Deadline: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 11:59 p.m. EST

Award Description

Through the generous support of the Office of the Vice Provost for Research and the Office of the Provost, the GW Undergraduate Research Award gives promising undergraduates the opportunity to engage in a well-defined research project under the guidance of a faculty member in their chosen fields of study.  Research experiences not only provide challenges and depth to students' education, but they also strengthen their applications for nationally competitive fellowships and for graduate and professional schools.

All research projects must be undertaken with ongoing input and direction from the faculty mentor. It is expected that the student and mentor will discuss their expectations regarding the time commitments of both parties, scope of research, and anticipated results (e.g., papers, presentations, performances, etc.) and arrive at a mutually agreeable understanding.

Award Benefits

GW undergraduate research fellowships provide an award of $5,000 meant to support the student’s research-related expenditures, which may include living expenses, travel, materials, and equipment.

Faculty mentors receive a stipend of $1,000. Faculty can opt to take this money as supplemental salary or ask that the funds be transferred to a departmental account (e.g., supporting travel, equipment, supplies, etc.).

Eligibility

Student applicants must be full-time undergraduate students at GW. Note: Recipients must be enrolled at GW throughout the tenure of the award. Full- or part-time faculty can serve as faculty mentors. Note: Faculty mentors must be associated with GW during the tenure of the award.

Period of Study

The project may begin during the summer and must be concluded during the spring semester of the following year.

Special Considerations

By completing that application,  CCAS students will also automatically be considered for the  Luther Rice Undergraduate Research Fellowship program .  

Students and faculty mentors are welcome to review the evaluation rubric for the GW Undergraduate Research Award and the Luther Rice Undergraduate Research Fellowship. 

The student-advisor relationship is an important element in the evaluation of applications, and accordingly, a faculty statement of support for a student’s application is not a standard recommendation letter.  Faculty may either submit a letter of support that addresses the following bullet points, or respond to each of them individually using a faculty mentor form.

• Describe how the faculty member will support the student through regular interactions, possibly together with other members of the faculty or their collaborators, and also describe previous interactions between the faculty member and the student;
• Give a short description of the project, and the value, timeliness and feasibility of the project;
• Describe concrete outcomes that result from the project, for instance a publication, a public presentation or a performance;
• Describe the student’s preparation and current skills, how they tie into the project, and what kind of skills will be developed for and/or during the project.

Application

Applications can be submitted through CUFR's InfoReady Portal .

A complete application includes:

• Two-page research proposal;
• One-page description of the student's previous experience and future goals;
• A Faculty Statement of Support; and
• GW Transcript; an official transcript may be ordered online (GWeb transcripts are not acceptable).  By submitting their applications, students thereby allow selection committees to review their academic record.

By completing that application,  CCAS students will also automatically be considered for the  Luther Rice Undergraduate Research Fellowship program .

Faculty Statements of Support:

You are required to have a statement of support from the faculty mentor supervising your research project. At a minimum , you will need to provide one email address for this mentor. Two additional email addresses can be provided if other mentors can provide significant and complementary comments on your research abilities and the benefits of the research itself. Please separately email a copy of the Faculty Mentor Support Form to your supporting mentor to ensure that they receive the template to complete their statement of support.

• Communication
• International Affairs
• Public Affairs/Government
• Social Sciences

Program Type

• Undergraduate

GWU Sponsored?

Gwu endorsement required.

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

School of Engineering & Applied Science

• Quick Facts
• Advisory Board
• Hall of Fame
• Women in Engineering
• Mr. C. Edwin “Ed” Becraft 
• Azer Kehnemui
• Christine Beyzaei
• Undergraduate curriculum sheets
• 5-year BS/MS Degree
• Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering
• Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering
• Certificate in Environmental Engineering
• Certificate in Geoenvironmental Engineering
• Certificate in Structural Engineering
• Certificate in Transportation Engineering
• Certificate in Smart Cities and Transportation
• Master's and Doctoral Areas of Focus
• Academic Policies & Schedules
• Senior Design
• Study Abroad
• Student Organizations
• Madison Haley
• Mark Arnoldy
• Graduate Students
• Admissions & Financial Aid
• About Advising
• Meet Your Academic Advisor
• Incoming Students
• Graduating Seniors
• Pre-Professional Advising
• Academic Support Services
• Undergraduate Ambassadors
• American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
• New Student Experience
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Career Services

Undergraduate Research

• National Professional Studies
• GW Innovation Center
• Student Resources
• Faculty Directory
• Seismic Response of Nuclear Fuel Assembly
• Lateral Response of Self-Centering Unbonded Post-Tensioned Pendulum Shear Walls
• Liquefaction Experiment and Analysis Projects (LEAP)
• Shake Table Simulation of Liquefaction-induced Lateral Spreading
• Investigation of removal of micro-pollutants in single and dual media biofilters for water reuse
• Development of electrospun nanofibrous air filters for controlling the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2
• Interaction of colloidal particles with environmental surfaces
• Unraveling complex structures and properties of group IV alloys for mid-infrared technology
• Understanding thermodynamics and kinetics of crystal nucleation
• From Engineering Application to Environmental Implication: Emerging Photoreactive (Nano)material of Graphitic Carbon Nitride
• Re-designing materials for desalination of unconventional water sources
• A new and Innovative precast bridge deck system
• Third Generation Simulation (TGSIM) data
• Optimizing Driver Incentives for Ride-Sourcing Services
• Water Resources Engineering
• Facilities & Labs
• Dr. Samer Hamdar: Driven by Safety Concerns
• Dr. Danmeng Shuai: The Promise of Photo-catalysts
• Dr. Rumana Riffat: Waste Not, Want Not
• Dr. Pedro Silva: The Arc of an Idea
• Dr. Tianshu Li: Material Progress
• Dr. Leila Farhadi: Creating Better Models
• News Archives
• Event Archives

A broad range of research opportunities for SEAS undergraduate students exists, both within our own SEAS labs and with faculty in other GW schools.  We encourage undergraduate students to seek out these opportunities by talking to their professors and to upperclassmen already engaged in research.  A good way to begin is by learning the labs that exist at SEAS.  The links below will help; they are sorted by major and area of research.

• Biomedical Engineering
• Civil Engineering   
• Computer Science  
• Electrical and Computer Engineering    
• Mechanical Engineering   
• Engineering Management and Systems Engineering

Tips for Finding Research Opportunities

Undergraduate research experiences offer the chance to learn first-hand, in collaboration with professors, how new knowledge is generated. There are many ways to get involved in research at GW:

• Review the tips provided by the  Center for Undergraduate Fellowships and Research  and the  Office of the Vice President for Research .
• Connect with student organizations like the  GW Undergraduate Review  or others listed in  GW Engage  to network with peers that have similar interests.
• Visit and bookmark  GW Student Research Commons  to learn about opportunities and events.
• Explore the  GW Student Employment talent management portal  and filter positions by “Time Spent on Research.”
• Reach out to faculty directly to learn more about their work and ask if they have opportunities to get involved. The Department of Biological Sciences has posted some  tips for starting these conversations .
• Search using the  GW Expert Finder  to learn about GW faculty research and publications.

This program allows undergraduates to highlight non-credited research experiences on their official GW transcript. The transcript notation recognizes important experiential learning and gives future degree programs and employers a more complete picture of a student’s background and interests. Contact  [email protected]  with questions about this opportunity. For more information about the transcript notation process and to submit a request click the button below:

Transcription Notion Webpage

The Summer Undergraduate Program for Engineering Research (SUPER) is a summer research fellowship for SEAS undergraduate students. SEAS undergraduate students interested in getting involved in research over the summer should contact a faculty member whose research interests align with their own to learn more about their work and to explore opportunities.

The SEAS Student Research & Development Showcase was founded in 2007 to help foster the growth of research development and entrepreneurship at SEAS. More than 120 students compete in this annual, school-wide R&D competition, presenting research posters and vying for prize money from our sponsors. SEAS encourages our undergraduate students to enter and learn from the competition. Visit the  SEAS Student R&D Showcase  website to learn more information.

• News & Events
• Career Development

Elliott School of International Affairs

• Meet the Dean
• Staff Directory
• Board of Advisors
• Annual Report
• Asian Studies
• European and Eurasian Studies
• Global Communication
• International Affairs
• International Development Studies
• International Economic Policy
• International Science and Technology Policy
• Latin American and Hemispheric Studies
• Middle East Studies
• Security Policy Studies
• International Policy and Practice
• International Studies (MIS)
• Combined Bachelor's/Master's Degrees
• Joint and Dual Degrees
• Global Gender Policy
• Nuclear Policy Studies
• Graduate Course Descriptions
• Graduate Language Proficiency Requirement
• Global Capstone
• Professional Skills Courses
• B.A. in International Affairs
• B.S. in International Affairs
• B.A. in Asian Studies
• B.A. in Latin American and Hemispheric Studies
• B.A. in Middle East Studies
• Minor in International Affairs

Student Research Opportunities

• Undergraduate Course Descriptions
• Undergraduate Language Proficiency Exam Process
• Special Programs
• The National Security Studies Program
• How to Apply
• Find a Program
• Prerequisites & Materials
• Connect With Us
• What can I do with an international affairs degree?
• Funding Graduate Studies
• International Applicants
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Newly Admitted Graduate Students
• Graduate Academic Advising
• Career Development Programs
• Handshake Resources
• Partnerships, Fellowships & Grants
• Professional Resources
• Graduate Forms and Applications
• Exchange Partners
• Transfer Credit from Abroad
• Graduate Tuition and Fees
• Academic Advisors
• Academic and Registration FAQs
• DegreeMAP FAQs
• Transfer Credit
• Transfer Students
• International Students
• Funding Opportunities
• 2024 Commencement Celebration
• Living & Studying in Washington, D.C.
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Council
• Action Plan for Inclusive Excellence
• Faculty Directory
• Faculty Representation
• Open Faculty Positions
• Faculty Research
• Centers, Institutes & Initiatives

When students conduct original research while working closely with a member of the faculty, they are able to address critical international challenges, develop potential policy solutions and participate at the cutting edge of key policy debates, while also developing their analytical and communication skills. The skills and relationships developed through this experience make students well-positioned for graduate study and exciting career opportunities.

There are numerous ways Elliott School undergraduate students can engage in research beyond the confines of the traditional classroom. Explore your options below.

See the 2024 Student Research Showcase Winners

While studying abroad in Peru, I began a research project examining how Quechua farmers in the Cusco region respond to the degradation of native forests. With support from the Elliott School’s Undergraduate Scholars Research Program, I returned to Cusco for several weeks to further investigate the relationship between the indigenous communities and the NGO working to restore the forests... This yearlong research led to a deeper understanding of how NGOs can create sustainable development programs that foster local investment and empower communities.

Eric Teller Class of 2018

Some of Our Opportunities

Independent Study courses are an opportunity for students in the Elliott School to receive credit for individualized academic projects supervised by a GW faculty advisor. The faculty advisor may be any GW professor who has taught at GW at least two times in the past three years, and they must have knowledge of the issue or topic the student will explore in the independent study. Independent Study coursework must not duplicate courses that are traditionally offered at the University. This research opportunity offers a range of credit options, which are determined by the length of the research paper:

• 1 credit = 10 page minimum
• 2 credits = 20 page minimum
• 3 credits = 30 page minimum

Eligibility

• Junior or senior standing (60 or more earned credit hours)
• Cumulative GPA must be 3.0 or higher at time of application

Course Requirements

IAFF 3198: Independent Study and Research  — To complete the independent study, students must fulfill the following academic requirements:

• Research Paper: Students must complete a research paper relevant to contemporary international affairs. The paper is to be developed over the course of the semester in conjunction with the faculty advisor. The faculty advisor has final approval on all aspects of the paper except the length, which is described above.
• Readings: Decisions regarding what books and articles must be read are to be negotiated by the student and the faculty advisor. Faculty advisors may assign readings or they may approve readings that students suggest if they feel the content is appropriate and relevant. In addition, faculty advisors have the authority to set deadlines and assign any related work.
• Faculty/Student Meetings: The faculty advisor and the student will meet regularly throughout the semester.

Responsibilities for the faculty advisor:

• Sign the student's Independent Study application
• Meet with the student regularly during the semester
• Assign appropriate readings, review/revise the final product periodically
• Submit a grade at the end of the semester*

* The Elliott School will send a form to the faculty advisor about two weeks prior to the end of the semester to request a grade.

Deadline: Applications for the Independent Study are due no later than the Friday of the second week of classes in the semester.

Students are able to apply for an internship course for credit or for zero credits. The internship course for credit has two options: 1) Students can enroll in the Research Paper course and work closely with a faculty advisor to write a final research paper relevant to their internship and contemporary international affairs; or  2) Students can enroll in the Professional Development Seminar that will emphasize professional competencies, leadership, and skills development.  Details about all options can be found in the Guidelines linked below.  

• IAFF 3195 - Research Paper - For Credit (PDF)   (In order to be eligible for our internship research paper course for credit, students must first review the IAFF 3195  information slides .)
• IAFF 3195 - Zero Credit Option (PDF)
• IAFF 3196 - Internship Professional Development Seminar - For Credit (PDF)

International Internships

Governments and organizations outside the US sometimes require prospective undergraduate student interns to complete internship agreements that the George Washington University cannot support. Instead, and in consultation with our Office of General Council, the University has created an internship agreement form that you can submit to those governments or organizations to complete. Please contact Sarah Squire , the director of undergraduate academic advising, if you are pursuing an internship opportunity with a government or organization outside the US that requires you and GW to sign an internship agreement form. 

Research Seminar courses provide an opportunity for students to write a substantial research paper on an issue related to the general subject of the seminar. Students will earn 3 credit hours by completing a Research Seminar course (IAFF 4191 or 4191W).

Students must meet all of the following requirements in order to register for a Research Seminar:

• Junior or senior standing (60 or more earned credit hours)
• Cumulative GPA must be 3.4 or higher at time of application

IAFF 4191: Research Seminar  — To complete the Research Seminar, students must attend a course that meets weekly. The seminars can be viewed on GWEB or on the GW Schedule of Classes by searching for IAFF 4191 or IAFF 4191W. Research Seminars topics vary and are subject to availability (Some topics are not offered each semester).

How to Register for the IAFF 4191: Research Seminar

Students must submit a  Registration Transaction Form (RTF) (PDF)  to your academic advisor. Your academic advisor will then verify your eligibility, and sign you into the course.

Earning Elliott School Special Honors

Students who complete a Research Seminar course as a senior with a grade of A- or higher, earn a cumulative GPA of 3.7 upon graduation, and earn 60 credit hours in residence at GW will be awarded Special Honors. Special Honors is noted on a line of the final transcript that indicates graduation with Special Honors from the Elliott School.

*Please note ESIA Special Honors is designated to students participating in the Research Seminar in their final year of study. Juniors who take the Research Seminar can take another Research Seminar during their Senior Year if they wish to qualify for ESIA Special Honors and concurrently satisfy additional requirements within their specific plan of study. Students are encouraged to consult with their Academic Advisor if planning on taking the Research Seminar as a Junior. 

The Senior Thesis is an opportunity for students to participate in a semester-long independent research project under the guidance of  a GW faculty advisor. The faculty advisor may be any GW professor who has taught at GW at least two times in the past three years, and they must have knowledge of the issue or topic the student will explore in the senior thesis. During the semester, students will write a substantial research paper on an issue related to international affairs. Students will earn three credit hours for completing the Senior Thesis course (IAFF 4199) . 

Students must meet all of the following requirements prior to applying for registration.

• Senior standing (90 or more earned credit hours)
• Cumulative GPA must be 3.4 or higher at the time of application
• Final Year of study at GW

IAFF 4199: Senior Thesis  — Students must conduct original research and write 30 or more pages about an international affairs topic of their choice. Students are responsible for finding a GW faculty advisor who is willing to meet on a regular basis throughout the semester to supervise the research and writing process.

How to Apply/Register for IAFF 4199 Senior Thesis

Please note that students cannot register for the Senior Thesis via GWeb.

Seniors applying for the thesis option (fall or spring) are required to 

• Review the IAFF 4199  information slides . 
• Identify a GW faculty advisor to work with. Students should discuss their project with their prospective faculty advisor and define their research question well ahead of the deadline - preferably in the previous semester.
• Follow the registration process listed below.

Once received, applications will be reviewed for eligibility.

Deadline: Applications for the Senior Thesis are due no later than the Friday of the second week of classes in the semester.

To register for:

• IAFF 3195: Internship for Zero Credit
• IAFF 3195: Internship for Credit
• IAFF 3198: Independent Study
• IAFF 4199: Senior Thesis

Please use the following link and complete the Qualtrics Survey: 

• https://gwuelliottschool.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0SO5foSCHFvkkS2.  

Application deadlines:

• Fall 2024: September 6th, 2024
• Spring 2025: January 24, 2025

To register for IAFF 3196 Internship Professional Development Seminar , students do not need to complete the Qualtrics Survey. Please follow the directions in the Internship Courses section and contact the listed instructor in the Schedule of Classes. 

Dean's Scholars Program  

The Elliott School of International Affairs created the Dean’s Scholars Program to provide an intensive research opportunity for undergraduate students who wanted to distinguish themselves both professionally and academically. Designed to be a two-year program, juniors and seniors interested in expanding their knowledge and skills in the field of International Affairs. Selected participants are supported in designing individual research projects and conducting field research in their specific area of interest under the guidance of a faculty mentor. Applications open in the spring semester of students' sophomore year.

Benefits of the Program

• Small group research classes that allows collaborative and in-depth learning across multiple semesters.
• Customized curriculum that guides each student through the research design, data collection and writing processes.
• Close relationship with faculty mentor and the program's Associate Director. 
• Financial support to be used for research travel, materials, and expenses.
• Support and mentoring for fellowship applications . 

General schedule of the program

• Junior Fall Semester – IAFF 2040: Research Methods in International Affairs – Scholars take a 3-credit research methods section specifically tailored to the Dean’s Scholars program where they will design their research project.
• Junior Spring Semester – Scholars take a 1-credit seminar where they will refine their project proposals, prepare data collection materials, and obtain approval through GW’s Institutional Review Board before conducting their research.
• Junior Summer Semester – Scholars conduct their fieldwork and begin data analysis.
• Senior Fall Semester – Scholars take a 3-credit WID course where they will analyze their data and write-up their research papers.
• Senior Spring Semester – Scholars present their research at conferences, submit their revised papers to peer-reviewed journals, and finish any fellowship applications.

Please email the program's Associate Director, Maryam Deloffre , with any questions about the program.

Research Assistant Awards

To encourage students to participate in faculty-led research projects, the Elliott School offers the Research Assistant award. The Application form and deadline are available on the Funding Opportunities page .

Elliott School faculty may seek outstanding students to assist them with an original research project. Selected students will receive an undergraduate research award of up to $1,500 to help with faculty-led research. The size of the award will depend on the amount of research work the undergraduate is likely to perform. Although an Elliott School faculty member must lead the research project, the student recipients of these awards are not required to be Elliott School students.

Research Awards

To encourage students to pursue their own original research, the Elliott School offers the Undergraduate Research Award. The Application form and deadline are available on the Funding Opportunities page .

These awards are for student-initiated projects designed to help with student research expenses (e.g., data collection, the purchase of research materials, and project-related travel). To be eligible to apply, the student must be an Elliott School undergraduate who is enrolled in a Senior Thesis, Research Seminar, or Independent Study course.

Information about these awards and when students can apply are sent via email from the Elliott School and are included in the advising newsletter.  In addition to the above awards, students may find research funding opportunities at their center, institute, or program. 

Please contact the Undergraduate Program Coordinator at [email protected] with any questions about funding for research projects in the Elliott School.

Other Funding Opportunities 

Gw available research funding & application.

There is also funding available via a general GW Undergraduate Research Award for students across GW. *Note: The project may begin during the summer and must be concluded during the spring semester of the following year.

• Faculty by Research Area
• News & Events
• Support Physics

Department of Physics

Columbian College of Arts & Sciences

• Barry Berman Memorial Lecture Series
• Cornelius Bennhold Memorial Lecture Series
• Frances E. Walker Lecture Series
• Colloquia 2023-2024
• Past Colloquia
• Past Events
• Alumni Outcomes
• BA in Physics
• BS in Physics
• BS in Astronomy & Astrophysics
• BS in Biophysics
• Minor in Physics
• Minor in Biophysics
• Minor in Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Advising & Credit Transfer
• Opportunities & Resources
• MS in Physics
• GW Department of Physics Guide to the PhD
• General Exam Guidelines
• Research Courses
• Graduate Research
• History of Astrophysics at GW
• Nuclear Physics
• Adjunct Faculty
• Emeriti Faculty
• Legacy Faculty
• Postdoctoral Fellows
• Graduate Students

Undergraduate Research Courses

Completing a research course connects class work to real-world applications and shows students how professional lab experiments run or how scientists use super computers.

All BS in Physics , BS in Biophysics and BS in Astronomy and Astrophysics  students are required to complete one three-credit research course. BA in Physics students may also complete research courses for credit. 

Consult your research advisor and the departmental undergraduate advisor for guidance on how to satisfy a research course. Note: Completing a research course project does not fulfill departmental honors requirements .

Research Advisors

Every student wishing to complete a research course must choose a research advisor. The advisor oversees progress on the project, provides necessary assistance and determines the final grade. 

The research advisor must be a member of the Physics Department faculty , even in cases when the project is completed in another department or another institution. Students may involve additional research advisors, pending agreement from the faculty research advisor and the departmental undergraduate advisor.

Students should carefully review the list of faculty by research group to find a potential research advisor and reach out to them directly. Students are also guided in this process during the capstone course.

Faculty Research Groups

GWU Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences

Leading research, practice, and education in the science of psychology

Undergraduate Research Opportunities

You can enroll in Psyc 3591 (Supervised Research) or 4591 (Independent Research) to work with Psychology faculty on a wide range of research projects. 

Transcript Notation for Undergraduate Research Experience . A new program allows undergraduates to highlight non-credited research experiences on their official GW transcript. The transcript notation recognizes important experiential learning and gives future degree programs and employers a more complete picture of a student’s background and interests. 

To receive 3591, 4591, or a transcript notation for research experience, you must first find a professor willing to work with you and enter into an agreement to be submitted at the start of the semester to the Department office. There is normally a list available through the department office at the start of the year of faculty potentially looking for undergraduates to assist in their research. Or talk to a professor whose research interests you. Or look at the Department website for information about faculty research interests.

Other GW research opportunities are listed through: 

• Academic Commons lists some research openings at GW and some fellowship opportunities.
• GW Center for Undergraduate Fellowships and Research (a useful resource on both internal and external competitive fellowships.
• Research opportunities also appear now and then in emails distributed to the Psychmajors listserv. (Be sure to get on it when you declare your major.)

GW Funded Research Fellowships

GW and the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences have several opportunities for funding such work. Existing opportunities for funding include:

Department Opportunities:

GW also provides funding to support intensive undergraduate research experiences under the mentorship of university faculty: 

The following undergraduate research fellowships are administered through the Center for Undergraduate Fellowships and Research:

• GW Undergraduate Research Award   ($5,000 for student, $1,000 for mentor; deadlines December 3 or March 1)
• Luther Rice Undergraduate Research Fellowship   (CCAS program; $3,000-$5,000 plus $1,000 for mentor, December 3 and March 1)
• Sigelman Undergraduate Research Enhancement (SURE) Award   (up to $500, October 6 and January 20 deadline)
• The Cisneros Undergraduate Research Fellowship (Latino issues; $5,000 for student, $1,000 for mentor; deadlines not yet updated so not sure if available)
• Loeb Institute for Religious Freedom Undergraduate Research Fellowship ($1500—deadlines are typically at end of November)
• Center for Undergraduate Fellowships and Research is a generally useful resource for other fellowship opportunities

The following undergraduate fellowships are funded by the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences:

• Undergraduate Research and Service Grants (URSG-- up to $500 to support research expenses or travel or other expenses associated with an internship; awarded for fall, spring, or summer)
• Undergraduate Summer Research Fellowship (USRF-- a larger award to support an intensive summer research experience with a PBS faculty mentor)

Psi Chi List of External Grants and Awards for Undergraduates - Psi Chi offers a variety of awards and grants to undergraduate members. We encourage you to apply for multiple grants and awards throughout your college career because you will learn from the process. Each time you complete an application, you will gain experience and insight. Application portals open approximately 30 days before the deadline.

• Campus Advisories
• EO/Nondiscrimination Policy
• Website Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Report a barrier to accessibility.

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.

Office of the Vice Provost for Research

• Staff Directory
• Research Administration Groups
• OVPR Data Request Form
• Federal Sponsors
• Funding Databases
• International Funding
• Intramural Funding Opportunities
• Engaging Lewis-Burke
• Research Enhancement Services
• Featured Sponsors
• Limited Submission Process
• Infrastructure Descriptions
• CDRF Recipients (FY24)
• UFF Recipients (FY24)
• Humanities Facilitating Fund
• Funded University Seminars
• Other Intramural Competitions

Establishing Research Centers and Institutes

• Research Centers & Institutes - Alphabetical Order
• Research Centers & Institutes By School
• 2023 OVPR Faculty Awards
• 2022 OVPR Faculty Awards
• 2021 OVPR Faculty Awards
• 2020 OVPR Faculty Awards
• 2019 OVPR Faculty Awards
• 2018 OVPR Faculty Awards
• 2017 OVPR Faculty Awards
• 2016 OVPR Faculty Awards
• GW Shared and Core Facilities
• Research Enhancement Incentive Awards
• Illustration Request Form
• New Faculty Resources
• LabArchives
• Engaging Undergraduates in Mentored Research
• For-Credit Research Internships
• Hiring Federal Work Study Students
• Research Transcript Notation
• Research Updates - 2023
• Research Updates - 2022
• Research Updates - 2021
• Sign-up for Updates from OVPR
• GW Research Showcase
• Spark to Impact Series

Research Centers and Institutes

The George Washington University (GW) is home to approximately 70 research centers and institutes that contribute to the university’s missions of discovery, scholarship and service. These chartered research organizations span all ten of GW’s schools and many spur innovation through cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Chartered Centers and Institutes – Alphabetically

Chartered Centers and Institutes – By School

Download the 2023 Issue

Closing the Healing Gap

Researchers at the GW Center for Global Mental Health Equity are working to treat mental illnesses and reduce mental health stigma in settings from Uganda and Nepal to New York City.

Plasma Promise

Aerospace engineer Michael Keidar has spent his career studying the physics of plasma and how to harness this fourth state of matter for real-world applications. His research is yielding big results in everything from satellite propulsion to cancer treatments.

mRNA Vaccine Moonshot

mRNA vaccines changed the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now GW researchers are developing these vaccines to treat and prevent diseases from cancer and HIV to malaria and shingles.

From Synapse to Silicon

GW researchers are on the forefront of a revolution in computer hardware innovation—designing and fabricating computer chips that take inspiration from the human brain.

Agents of Change

For the past decade, the Global Women’s Institute has helped build the evidence base on violence against women and girls and what works to prevent gender-based violence. Where does it go from here?

Building Bridges with Communities

In December 2020, George Washington University School of Nursing Associate Professor Sherrie Flynt Wallington and colleagues launched a research project focused on the roles of fathers in addressing disparities in maternal mortality.

Air (E)Quality for All

The most polluted neighborhoods in the United States are also the most disadvantaged. Research at GW aims to shine a light on this inequity—and effect policy change.

Land of Ice & Fire

More than 4 million people live in the Arctic, where climate change is progressing faster than on the rest of the planet. Researchers across GW are working to help sustain their cities, infrastructures and cultures.

Closing America's Homeownership Gap

Boosting homeownership among black households in America begins with owning up to a history of racial discrimination in the real estate and mortgage industries.

In AI We Trust

Engineering Professor Zoe Szajnfarber talks about transforming the graduate education model to better prepare future designers to navigate the opportunities and risks inherent in designing new AI algorithms and deploying them in the real world.

Today’s Hours

Featured services.

• Estelle & Melvin Gelman Library
• Eckles Library
• Virginia Science and Technology Campus Library
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• Jacob Burns Law Library
• Arthur D. Jenkins Library

• Undergraduates
• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Instructors
• Off-Campus Students

Get Research Help

The library is here to support you in all stages of your research, including research strategy, finding materials and sources, analyzing data, citation management, and more.

Get your questions answered via phone, chat, email, Zoom, and in-person at the library.

Consultation Services

Schedule a virtual or in-person meeting with a specialist.

Research Guides

Browse curated lists of databases and web resources organized by topic.

How Do I Tutorials

 Watch video tutorials and access other helpful tips on doing research and using the library.

Citation Management

Resources for managing your research and formatting citations.

Learn more about copyright or request a copyright consultation.

Data Services

Explore resources and services to help you find, manage, and analyze data.

Attend a workshop to learn new academic, research, technical, and multimedia skills.

Research Process Overview

Get an introduction to the scholarly research process.

Preparing for Publishing

Resources for preparing your work for publishing and preserving and assessing its impact.

CREATE Digital Studio

Learn how to make videos, podcasts, and other engaging multimedia and digital storytelling projects.

McCoy College of Business

Mr. david angelow - information systems & analytics.

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 512-633-1500

Research Interests: Innovation and start-up businesses, Internet of Things, Business Model Development.

Bio: I work at the intersection of Operations and IT and have helped dozens of businesses improve their team, competitiveness, and drive profitable growth. I am known for my ability to bring teams together and analyze problems to identify root-cause and complicating factors, and design initiatives to deliver improvements.

I have directed cross-functional teams with direct responsibility for over 75 staff distributed globally and with over $130M direct budget responsibility. My background is a unique blend of consulting and direct line management. Because of my background, I have strong analytical skills, strategic thought processes, and experience with several methods and tools to help deliver financial improvement.

Dr. Tahir Ekin - Information Systems & Analytics

Email: [email protected]

Phone : 512-245-3297

Research Interests : statistics, analytics, data mining, medical fraud, fraud detection, simulation based stochastic optimization, Bayesian modeling, resource allocation, optimization.

Bio: Tahir Ekin is the Brandon Dee Roberts Professor and an Assistant Professor of Quantitative Methods in McCoy College of Business, Texas State University. He holds a Ph.D. in Decision Sciences from The George Washington University (GWU) and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Bilkent University, Turkey. His teaching experience include the areas of statistics, data mining and analytics. His research interests include simulation based stochastic optimization, Bayesian modeling, statistical medical fraud assessment and operations research applications in resource allocation. He was the recipient for ASA/NISS y-Bis 2016 Best Paper Award. His work has been published in a number of academic journals including Decision Analysis, Naval Research Logistics, The American Statistician, Health Care Management Science and Reliability Engineering & System Safety. He has been involved with many successful internal and external grants worth more than $500,000 including a National Science Foundation grant. He was invited to present in various conferences including the meetings sponsored by Institute for Operations Research and Management Science (INFORMS), International Society for Bayesian Analysis (ISBA) and The International Society for Business and Industrial Statistics (ISBIS). Prior to joining Texas State University, he was teaching business statistics at GWU School of Business and working as a statistician at Integrated Management Services. He has been involved in developing solutions for practical problems using tools of Operations Research and Statistics in diverse areas as financial risk management, demand management, health care fraud detection, supply chain management and manufacturing for companies including IFC (World Bank), Carlsberg and Procter & Gamble. Currently, he also serves as the Vice President for ISBIS and Program Chair of Young Business and Industrial Statisticians. Please see his personal website, www.tahirekin.com, for more details.

Jennifer Krou - Information Systems and Analytics

Email:  [email protected]

 Phone: 512-245-3205

Research Interests:  My research interests are varied from understanding American spending and saving habits (or lack thereof) to accessibility for learning and understanding why students fail a course. Specifically, failing technology and STEM courses using the technology adoption model (TAM), technology diffusion theory, technology self-efficacy, academic self-regulation, and persistence.

Bio:  Currently, I am a Senior Lecturer in the Computer Information Systems & Quantitative Methods Department at Texas State University. My primary teaching course is Introduction to Computer Applications, focusing on Excel and Access. As course coordinator, I strive to provide a framework for our course that works for all teaching styles and delivery methods, including online sections. Technology is here, and it is our responsibility to help students find their comfort zone with technology as it applies to their career and life goals.  Past work: US Army; managed a law firm for 15 years; built tennis courts; built apartment complexes; trained horses (racehorses, stadium jumping, and roping/reining) For fun, I work with small local nonprofit organizations to organize and manage their computer networks and accounting functions. My other love is spending time with my daughter on horseback.

Dr. Francis Mendez - Information Systems and Analytics

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 512-245-3303

Research Interests: Statistical Data Analysis, Exploratory Data Analysis and Management Science.

Bio: Dr. Francis A. Méndez Mediavilla is an Full Professor of Statistics in the Department of Computer Information Systems and Quantitative Methods at Texas State University – San Marcos. Dr. Méndez Mediavilla has been at Texas State University since July 2005. Dr. Méndez Mediavilla received his Ph.D. from Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, in 2005. He holds a BBA in Finance, Management Information Systems and an MBA in Quantitative Methods from the University of Puerto Rico. He is currently a member of the American Statistical Association, the Institute of Mathematical Statistics; serves as a reviewer for the European Journal of Industrial Engineering, and as a member of the Editorial Review Board for the Inter Metro Business Journal. He has published in the Journal of Applied Business and Economics, Journal of Applied Business and Economics, International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, British Journal of Management, the International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, and the IEEE Transactions in Semiconductor Manufacturing among others. In the early 1990’s he worked in the area of MIS as a consultant, programmer (C language and FoxPro) for the government and for the banking industry. In the late 1990’s he worked as a junior statistician doing consulting for the government and for health insurance companies.

Dr. Jaymeen Shah - Information Systems and Analytics

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 512-245-3230

Research Interests: Research interests: Computer mediated communication, Strategic use of IT, and Supply Chain Management.

Dr. Janet Hale - Finance and Economics

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 512-245-2547

Research Interests: United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), sustainability in triple bottom line, commercial law, applied research on campus, community and IH 35 corridor.

Bio: Dr. Janet Riola Hale holds her Doctor of Jurisprudence from Saint Mary’s School of Law in San Antonio, Texas. She teaches Business Law at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas in the Department of Finance and Economics at Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg in Germany and Jiao Tong University in China.  

Dr. Hale focuses on commercial, international and sustainability laws at the undergraduate and graduate levels.  Her Bachelor of Arts degree is in Philosophy from the University of Arkansas where she was co-captain of a nationally ranked Division-I swim team; and, her Master of Arts degree is from Baylor University where Dr. Hale specialized in classical aesthetics.  

https://www.linkedin.com/in/janet-riola-hale-49075010/

Dr. Ruby P. Kishan - Finance and Economics

Email: [email protected]

Research Interests: Macroeconomics, financial institutions, international macroeconomics, modern economic issues.

Bio: I have been at Texas State since 1986. My research interests are in the areas of Monetary Policy, Macroeconomics, Financial institutions, economic growth, and applied econometrics. My studies on the integration of financial institutions and monetary policy are heavily cited, including citations by Federal Reserve Board ex-Chair, Ben Bernanke.

Dr. Floyd Quinn - Management

Email: [email protected]

Phone : 512-657-0878

Research Interests: Organizational Behavior, Organizational Performance, Managerial Effectiveness, Team Dynamics, Employee Development.

Bio: Dr. Floyd Quinn currently works as a full-time lecturer in the McCoy College of Business Administration at Texas State University. Prior to his employment with McCoy College, he was a lecturer in the H-E-B School of Business and Administration at the University of the Incarnate Word located in San Antonio, TX. He has also instructed in the Occupational, Workforce, and Leadership Studies department of the School of Applied Arts at Texas State University and participated in a summer program at the Vienna University of Economics and Business. His research broadly focuses on the characteristics of environments that encourage and influence individuals and groups to perform at their highest levels. This exploration is approached from the perspective of adult learning and includes workplace and academic settings where external factors play a role in affecting motivation, commitment, and performance. He has written extensively on this topic, contributing to a textbook as well as publishing numerous articles on the subject. He is the recipient of the 2016 Jerome L. Neuner Award for Excellence in Professional Scholarly Publication from the American Association of University Administrators as well as the 2016 College Achievement Award for the Presidential Award for Excellence in Scholarly/Creative Activities from Texas State University. Dr. Quinn served as Senior Administrator and MBA Program Director at Texas Health and Science University where, among his other duties, he was responsible for curriculum development and program accreditation. He has also served as Associate Director of Human Resources at Texas State University, Human Resources Consultant to the Texas State Auditor providing consulting services to the Governor's Office, state legislature, as well as state agencies and public universities. He also served as Corporate Director of Human Resources at Surrey, Inc., and Divisional Human Resources Manager for the software company, Activant, with HR management responsibilities in Austin, TX and Pleasanton, CA.

Dr. Linda Alkire - Marketing

Email :  [email protected]

Phone:  512-245-3245

Research Interests:  Dr. Alkire‘s (née Nasr) research interests include Service Marketing and Management, Transformative Service Research (TSR), Technology and Service.In particular, Dr. Alkire is working on further exploring wellbeing related topics in various service industries and contexts. Dr. Alkire’s interest in wellbeing research is dictated by a deep and personal conviction that researchers should contribute to the well-being of the service community and society in general by offering transformational insights to service providers. Dr. Alkire is also interested in transdisciplinary research, in particular, the usage of novel technology interfaces (such as Robotics, AI, etc.) within service deliveries, and the role of technology and social media in shaping the service experience of customers and employees. Bio:  Before joining the marketing faculty at Texas State University, Dr. Alkire was an Assistant Professor at the University of Manchester, UK. Dr. Alkire earned her Ph.D. from the Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, UK, where she was awarded the highly competitive and prestigious Manchester Business School Doctoral Studentship. Dr. Alkire received her MBA (Highest Distinction) from the Lebanese American University (Lebanon) and a B.A. in Business Marketing (Highest Distinction) from Notre Dame University (Lebanon).  Dr. Alkire has been awarded full scholarships for all her three degrees (B.A., MBA, Ph.D.). Dr. Alkire speaks four languages fluently.

Dr. Steven Rayburn - Marketing

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 512-245-7882

Research Interests: Service Marketing, Service Interactions, Service Design, Consumer and Worker Constraint.

Bio: I am deeply concerned for the greater well-being of our world. So I have a strong desire to conduct research that has the potential to positively impact people. This has lead me to the transformative service research focus that pervades my scholarship. Transformative service research is an approach to research that places human well-being at the core of all research. As a result, all of my projects have a practical perspective. I always seek to understand how organizations can put knowledge into practice to better the lives of the people they serve.

I am particularly concerned with how service work design impacts front-line employee and consumer well-being from a strategic service design perspective. At the same time, I am acutely aware of the potential for service delivery processes and providers to impact people negatively; psychologically, emotionally, and in some cases physically. While examining each these research areas, my concern for people has grown into a passion for research that will lend insight to how service providers can positively impact people's well-being through strategic choices and design.

I work on projects that examine how work design and training can influence the work related well-being of front-line services workers. I also conduct research on services in which consumers, and workers, find themselves limited in choice; control; and power. The guiding question for this research is: What do people experience when they are out of control and powerless and how does this impact their well-being? I have or am conducting this research in for-profit service organizations, social services, healthcare, and in community development services in developed, emerging, and developing economies.

I take a practical approach to explore and solve real problems because I believe researchers should apply their tools, techniques, and knowledge to understanding how to improve human well-being.

I do not do this work alone; it takes teams to solve real problems.

Dr. Ruth Taylor - Marketing

Email:  [email protected]

Phone:  512-245-3226

Research Interests: Cultural Research, Ethics and Social Responsibility, Marketing (producing, pricing, placing and promoting), Consumer Behavior, Therapeutic Benefits of Hand Weaving, Indigenous Intellectual Property

Bio: Taught marketing at Texas State University for going on 34 year and have 10 years of other teaching experience. Work in industry for several employers. Earned BS undergraduate degree in clothing and textiles at University of Houston; Masters Degree in Education (M. Ed) at Texas Christian University and earned Ph. D. in Marketing at University of North Texas. Served as a Fulbright Specialist in Peru on three Specialist assignments (2006, 2008 and 2017). Studied indigenous peoples' weaving in Sweden (SAMI Land), Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru and Mexico. Am interested in helping students develop inquisitive thinking skills and sound research methods.

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Residents & Fellows
• Patient Care
• Give to SMHS

Health Services Research

Health Services Research addresses important issues about access to health care, quality and cost, and utilization of health services. This multidisciplinary field of research studies how social factors, financing systems, technologies, organizational structures and processes, and personal behaviors contribute to health and well-being. Research studies often include patients, clinicians, policymakers and the community to innovate and inform health care. Many researchers explore why-if guidelines exist, or interventions were implemented—the problem still exists. Health services research fills the key gap between cures to care.

SMHS is launching a new, monthly journal club featuring recent health services research publications from top faculty. You’ll keep up with the latest GW research and find new ways to translate knowledge to enhance your clinical practice. Your in-person attendance is highly encouraged.

All are Welcome! Come join your colleagues for a lively discussion on today’s most compelling topics.

Review the Research Paper for September's Meeting

View Journal Club Calendar

An Introduction to Health Services Research has been designed for clinicians interested in developing the skills necessary to engage in health services research (HSR). Learners will be introduced to HSR conceptual models in a learning health system, designing a research trajectory, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method methodologies, community-based research strategies, ethical considerations in HSR, utilization of big data/EMR, funding mechanisms as well as writing and dissemination.  Each of the nine modules incorporates case studies, lectures, readings, and discussions with experts. Upon course completion, learners will have the knowledge and skills to begin their personal health services research line of inquiry.

View HSR Course Overview

Sign Up Here

• Scholarly Resources
• Other Resources

• Research & Learn

Table of Contents

2025 college free speech rankings.

Executive Summary

For the fifth year in a row, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonprofit organization committed to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, and College Pulse surveyed college undergraduates about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.

This year’s survey includes 58,807 student respondents from 257 colleges and universities. Students who were enrolled in four-year degree programs were surveyed via the College Pulse mobile app and web portal from January 25 through June 17, 2024. 

The College Free Speech Rankings are available online and are presented in an interactive dashboard ( rankings.thefire.org ) that allows for easy comparison between institutions. 

Key findings:

• The University of Virginia is this year’s top ranked school for free speech. Michigan Technological University, Florida State University, Eastern Kentucky University, and Georgia Tech round out the top five.
• Harvard University is this year’s bottom ranked school for free speech for the second year in a row. Joining it in the bottom three are Columbia University and New York University. All three of these schools have an “Abysmal” speech climate. The University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College round out the bottom five and each has a “Very Poor” speech climate.
• All of the bottom five schools experienced a number of controversies involving the suppression of free expression. They also received significantly lower scores than the top five schools on “Administrative Support,” “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” and “Tolerance Difference,” which measures the strength of students’ favoritism when it comes to allowing liberal or conservative speakers on campus.
• Since 2020, UVA, Michigan Tech, FSU, North Carolina State University, Oregon State University, Mississippi State University, Auburn University, George Mason University, Kansas State University, the University of Mississippi, the University of Chicago, and Claremont McKenna College have all consistently performed well in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings.
• A majority of students (54%) said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to “have an open and honest conversation about on campus,” a record high for a topic on this question in the five years we have asked it. At least 75% of students on 17 of the campuses surveyed responded this way to this question.
• The percentages of students who said shouting down a speaker, blocking other students from entering an event, and using violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable all increased since last year. 
• A majority of students said that six of eight hypothetical controversial campus speakers should “probably” or “definitely” not be allowed on campus.
• Student concerns about self-censorship have declined. This year, 17% of students said they feel like they cannot express their opinion on a subject at least a couple of times a week because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. Last year, this percentage was 20%, and in 2022 it was 22%.

About College Pulse

College Pulse is a survey research and analytics company dedicated to understanding the attitudes, preferences, and behaviors of today’s college students. College Pulse delivers custom data-driven marketing and research solutions, utilizing its unique American College Student Panel™ that includes over 850,000 college students and recent alumni from more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and universities in all 50 states.

For more information, visit collegepulse.com or @CollegeInsights on X.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE also recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending these rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses.

For more information, visit thefire.org or @thefireorg on X.

Acknowledgments and Suggested Citation

Our gratitude goes to Sean Stevens for questionnaire design, developing the scoring methodology, data analysis, and authoring this report; and to Nathan Honeycutt for support with questionnaire design, developing the scoring methodology, data analysis, data validation, and editing. We would additionally like to thank Sam Abrams for help with questionnaire design and developing the scoring methodology; Keelyn M. Gallagher, Logan Dougherty, Angela C. Erickson, Komi Frey, Sigrid Fry-Revere, Emily Nayyer, and Ryne Weiss for support with data validation; and Khalia Abner and Jackson Fleagle for designing this report.

Greg Lukianoff

President and CEO, FIRE 

Suggested citation: 

Stevens, S.T. (2024). 2025 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2025-college-free-speech-rankings

In 2020, in collaboration with College Pulse and RealClearEducation, FIRE launched a first-of-its-kind tool to help high school students and their parents identify which colleges promote and protect the free exchange of ideas: the College Free Speech Rankings. The response to the rankings report and corresponding online tool was overwhelmingly positive. 

We heard from prospective students how helpful it is to see what a large number of current students reported about the campus climate for open discussion and inquiry, allowing for comparisons between colleges. We also heard from colleges and universities that the rankings helped them better understand their campus climate in order to improve it. Similarly, professors and staff became better equipped to understand which topics students on their campuses find difficult to discuss. 

Each year, we have increased the number of campuses surveyed — from 55 in 2020 to 257 this year. In these five years, we have obtained survey responses from more than 200,000 undergraduates, including 58,807 this year. As in previous years, the College Free Speech Rankings dashboard ( rankings.thefire.org ) is available on the College Pulse website and the FIRE website. The dashboard offers a unique tool to compare schools’ free speech rankings and to explore other factors that students find important in a college or university, such as cost and proximity to home.

2025 College Free Speech Rankings expose threats to First Amendment rights on campus

Press release.

University of Virginia takes the top spot, while Harvard, Columbia, and NYU share an “Abysmal” free speech status.

The rankings offer students, parents, professors, administrators, and any other interested constituency unrivaled insight into undergraduate attitudes about and experiences with free expression on their college campuses. It also allows viewers to compare different colleges’ culture for free expression. Prospective students and their parents, as well as students considering transferring to another college, can use the rankings to assess and compare the speech climates at the schools they are considering attending. Current college students, professors, and administrators can use the rankings to better understand their own campus climate and see how it compares to that of others across the country. 

The data examined in this report provide a wealth of information about college student attitudes about free speech and the state of free speech on campuses across America. Do students feel comfortable speaking out about topics about which they are passionate, even when they have a minority viewpoint, in the classroom or in common campus areas? Are they open to hearing from challenging and sometimes controversial speakers? Are they open to allowing speakers to visit campus without facing a heckler’s veto — or worse?

The body of this report sheds light on the answers to these questions, among others, and contains three sections: 

• First, it presents the core findings of the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings. 
• It then presents a deeper analysis of some of the campuses impacted by the encampments that students set up during the spring 2024 semester to protest Israel’s military response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack. 
• The final section of this report presents analyses of college students’ free speech attitudes and experiences. 

The analyses of the encampment protests are buttressed by an accompanying report detailing the results of a separate survey conducted on 30 campuses after the encampment protests began. This report was released in conjunction with this year’s rankings.

A lot has happened since FIRE released the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings last September. Most significantly, Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war in Gaza sent shockwaves through American college and university campuses. 

Campus deplatforming attempts occurred at record levels, and protesters attempted to disrupt events with increasing frequency — and succeeded with increasing regularity. [1] Students, student groups, and faculty who expressed pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian sentiment were targeted for sanction by their peers, administrators, and elected officials. [2] University presidents testified in front of the House of Representatives on matters related to speech and protest on campus, and some subsequently resigned. [3]

This past spring, students on campuses across the country set up encampments to protest Israel’s military operations in Gaza, demanding that colleges and universities divest from companies who work with Israel or its military. [4] Members of the general public have not looked fondly on these protests: Three-quarters of them said that students who participate in the encampments should be disciplined in some way. [5]

Given all of this, it is not surprising that American confidence in higher education is at a record low. [6]  

In response to the encampment protests, FIRE and College Pulse reopened this year’s rankings survey on any campus with an encampment. This allowed us to collect survey data from students while the encampments were taking place. [7] In comparing this data to data from the same campus before an encampment started, we were able to measure changes in the campus speech climate in real time. This means that this year’s rankings provide a treasure trove of data on the evolving state of free expression at American colleges and universities.

As you will see, a college’s scores often reflect its response to the events of the past year. 

The Best and Worst Colleges for Free Speech

This year the University of Virginia is the top ranked school for free speech with an overall score of 73.41. Michigan Technological University, last year’s top school, ranks second overall with a score of 73.15. Florida State University, last year’s fifth-place school, ranks third with a score of 72.46. Each of the top three schools have a “Good” speech climate and actively defended free expression during campus speech controversies — UVA and Michigan Tech did so on multiple occasions. None of the three schools have a perfect record, but their actions to uphold free speech contributed to their position in the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings. 

FIRE has surveyed and ranked all of the top three schools multiple times over the five years that we have conducted the rankings. They consistently perform well. We surveyed UVA all five years: It achieved a ranking of 6 (twice), 22, and 24 before earning the top spot this year. We surveyed FSU four times: It achieved a ranking of 5 (twice) and 15 prior to earning the third slot this year. We only surveyed Michigan Tech twice: It came in second place this year after being last year’s top school. 

Eastern Kentucky University, with a score of 69.60, and Georgia Institute of Technology, with a score of 69.39, round out the top five. Both schools have “Above Average” speech climates. Like Michigan Tech, EKU made its rankings debut last year and also did well with a ranking of 15. 

All of the top five schools are state universities. Their average score is 71.60.

At the other end of the rankings, Harvard University came in last for the second year in a row and again obtained the lowest score possible: 0.00. This year, however, Harvard has company. Columbia University ranks 250, also with an overall score of 0.00. [8] New York University, with a score of 3.33, ranks 249. All three of these schools have “Abysmal” speech climates. The University of Pennsylvania, with a score of 12.50, and Barnard College, with a score of 15.62, round out the bottom five. Both of these schools have a “Very Poor” speech climate. 

In the aftermath of Claudine Gay's resignation, here's how Harvard can reform itself

With the loss of its president, America’s worst college for free speech is at another crossroads.

All of the bottom five schools are private institutions. Their average score is 6.29.

Why do the schools in the bottom five do so poorly? For starters, they each experienced a number of controversies in which expression was censored, suppressed, or shouted down. For instance, since 2020 we documented 20 speech controversies at Harvard that resulted in a deplatforming, a scholar sanction, a student sanction, or an attempted disruption of an event. In the same time frame, we documented 14 such incidents at Columbia, 12 at NYU, 10 at Penn, and 7 at Barnard. These incidents collectively resulted in 13 deplatformings, nine attempted disruptions, 23 scholar sanctions, and 18 student sanctions. During the same time period, we documented only five instances of the bottom five schools vigorously defending free speech. [9]

In contrast, since 2020 the top five schools have issued a total of two scholar sanctions and two student sanctions. During the same time period, we documented no deplatformings or attempted disruptions and seven instances of a top-five school vigorously defending free speech.

The outcomes of these speech controversies may also help explain why the bottom five schools received some of the worst “Administrative Support” scores. On “Administrative Support,” NYU ranks 245, Columbia ranks 247, Harvard ranks 250, and Barnard ranks 251 — dead last. Barnard’s score on “Administrative Support” is almost two full standard deviations below that of Harvard, the second-worst performing school on this component. With a ranking of 219 on the same component, Penn does somewhat better than its bottom-five counterparts, but it still does not do well compared to most other schools on the list. The bottom five schools have an average “Administrative Support” ranking of 242, suggesting that students who attend these schools do not think their administration strongly supports freedom of speech.

The top five schools received considerably higher “Administrative Support” scores than the bottom five schools. [10] Michigan Tech does particularly well, ranking 15. The remaining top five schools’ rankings on this component range from 62 (EKU) to 124 (Georgia Tech). The top five schools have an average “Administrative Support” ranking of 75, and all five scored at least two standard deviations above the scores of four of the bottom five schools — Penn is the lone exception.

The top five schools also received considerably higher “Comfort Expressing Ideas” and “Tolerance Difference” scores than the bottom five schools. [11]  

When it comes to comfort, the top five schools have an average ranking of 111 — led by EKU at 37 and FSU at 44. The bottom five schools, however, have an average ranking of 227. On “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” the top ranked bottom-five school is NYU at 173. Columbia ranks 234, Harvard ranks 235, Penn ranks 245, and Barnard ranks second to last at 250. This indicates that students at the top five schools are significantly more comfortable than students at the bottom five schools expressing their views on controversial political topics on campus in different contexts — such as during a class discussion or during a conversation in the dining hall or lounge.

In terms of political tolerance, students at the bottom five schools are considerably more willing than students at the top five schools to allow controversial liberal speakers on campus. They are considerably less willing to allow controversial conservative speakers on campus. 

The bottom five schools have an average “Tolerance Difference” ranking of 183. Among the bottom five schools, Harvard received the highest “Tolerance Difference” ranking: 131. This ranking is better than that of one of the top five schools, UVA, which received a ranking of 150. However, the remaining bottom five schools all received rankings worse than 150. Penn ranks 172, NYU ranks 188, Columbia ranks 192, and Barnard ranks 232. 

In contrast, the top five schools have an average “Tolerance Difference” ranking of 70, and UVA is the only top-five school that does not rank in the top 100. Michigan Tech ranks 9, EKU ranks 33, FSU ranks 68, and Georgia Tech ranks 89. These findings suggest that students at the top five schools are more politically tolerant than their counterparts at the bottom five schools. This conclusion is further supported by the prevalence of speech suppression on the bottom five campuses — as evidenced by the number of deplatformings, attempted disruptions, sanctioned scholars, and sanctioned students.

In sum, some clear differences exist between the top five and the bottom five schools. The top five schools are reluctant to sanction expression during a speech controversy. As compared to students at the bottom five schools, students at the top five schools believe their administration is more supportive of freedom of speech, feel more comfortable expressing their views on controversial political topics on campus, and appear to exhibit less bias against campus speakers based on the speaker’s political views.

As noted, FIRE has surveyed UVA, Michigan Tech, FSU, and EKU multiple times, and they have each consistently performed well in the rankings. North Carolina State University, Oregon State University, Mississippi State University, Auburn University, George Mason University, Kansas State University, Claremont McKenna College, the University of Chicago, and the University of Mississippi have also performed well year after year. 

At the other end of the spectrum, Columbia, Harvard, and Penn have consistently performed poorly over the years. This list also includes Fordham University, Georgetown University, Marquette University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Texas at Austin. Harvard, Georgetown, and RPI have each received FIRE’s Lifetime Censorship Award. [12]  

The rankings, overall score, and speech climate of the top 25 colleges are presented below. Scores are standardized and can range from 0-100. 

The top 25 include 24 schools that received FIRE’s “green light” rating — and one, Northeastern Illinois University, that received FIRE’s “yellow light” rating — for their speech-related policies. The full rankings for all 257 schools and scoring methodology are available in the Appendix, as well as on the College Free Speech Rankings dashboard, the College Pulse website, and the FIRE website. [13]

Risers and Fallers

Each year some students graduate, others transfer, and a new cohort of students enrolls in college. This cohort replacement makes it possible for the speech climate on a campus to change quickly. This year a handful of schools noticeably rose in the rankings. Others precipitously fell. Below, we briefly review a handful of these schools and note the reasons for their rise or fall.

Claremont McKenna College:  After falling from the top 10 to 73 last year, Claremont McKenna — which, like Florida State, we have surveyed four times — returns to its familiar spot in the top 10 with a ranking of 6. 

Claremont McKenna’s performance this year is notable. It ranks:

• 1 on “Comfort Expressing Ideas.” 
• 3 on “Mean Tolerance,” 
• 7 on “Tolerance for Controversial Conservative Speakers.” 
• 8 on “Tolerance for Controversial Liberal Speakers.” 
• 9 on “Administrative Support.”
• 25 on “Self-Censorship.”
• 44 on “Openness.”

These scores suggest that students at Claremont McKenna are comfortable expressing their views on a number of controversial political topics and doing so in a number of different contexts on campus, that they tolerate controversial speakers on campus, and that they believe their administration is committed to the First Amendment. 

Claremont McKenna ranks 100 on “Disruptive Conduct” and 148 on “Tolerance Difference.” Its “Tolerance Difference” ranking suggests that even though most students at Claremont McKenna are tolerant of controversial speakers whether they are liberal or conservative, they are more likely to support allowing a controversial liberal speaker on campus.

University of Chicago:  UChicago took either the first or second spot in each of the first three years of the rankings. Last year, it dropped to a ranking of 13, largely due to the administration’s decision to deny official recognition to a Turning Point USA club because the members "hadn't proved that there was interest in the group" and the club would be "too similar to College Republicans." 

This year, UChicago’s ranking dropped again, this time to 43. This decline is primarily due to two incidents that occurred after Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. In one instance, medical students attempted to disrupt a speaking event featuring the newly elected president of the American Medical Association. [14] In the other, students successfully disrupted an organized protest of the Hamas attack that was supposed to feature multiple speakers. [15]  

To UChicago’s credit, on both of these occasions students, not the administration, suppressed speech. The attempted disruption failed because university security escorted the protesters out of the event so that the speaker could complete his remarks successfully. And, in the aftermath of the disrupted event, the university president reiterated the school’s famous Chicago principles — a positive action that mitigated the penalty applied because of the disruption and which is reflected in the school’s rankings score. He stated: 

[N]o member of our community may shout down or seek to prevent the protected expression of those with whom they disagree. You may not tear down a poster. You may not seek to intimidate or threaten another person, or prevent them from hearing an invited speaker. These are egregious offenses against our community. [16]

University of South Carolina and Virginia Commonwealth University: Both of these schools ranked poorly last year. The University of South Carolina was third from the bottom at 246. Virginia Commonwealth University did better, but still not very well, with a ranking of 184. This year both schools made the top 50: VCU ranks 32, and the University of South Carolina ranks 34. 

One reason for their overall improvement is that both schools improved their score on “Comfort Expressing Ideas.” VCU moved from a ranking of 150 to a ranking of 108, and it ranks 18 on “Self-Censorship,” suggesting an improved campus speech climate. The University of South Carolina improved its “Comfort Expressing Ideas” ranking from 160 last year to 100 this year. It also improved considerably on “Administrative Support,” ranking 142 last year and 72 this year.

Another reason for these schools' improvement: Both schools worked directly with FIRE on revisions to their policies to earn a "green light" rating. The University of South Carolina adopted the “Chicago Statement” in June 2023 and revised four policies. VCU revised six. [17]

Syracuse University: In the first year of the rankings, Syracuse did poorly, ranking 51 of 55 schools. Over the next three years, it did better, ranking 38 of 154, 132 of  203, and 107 of 248. [18] This year however, Syracuse ranks 246, falling squarely in the bottom 10. 

Like Harvard University, Georgetown University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Syracuse University has received FIRE’s Lifetime Censorship Award. [19] So how did it receive a middling ranking most years? 

Last year, we penalized schools for enacting particularly severe sanctions on students for their speech: expulsion, rescinding acceptance, suspension, denying or revoking a student group’s recognition, or censoring a student newspaper. This year, we expanded the list of severe sanctions that could result in a penalty. We now also penalize schools for terminating a student employee, such as a resident assistant, from their campus job, censoring a student or student group, placing a student or student group under investigation for their expression, and mandating that a student undergo cultural competency or sensitivity training. We also penalize schools at which the student government sanctions a student or a student group for their expression.

We recorded seven student sanctions at Syracuse that impacted the school’s overall score: It suspended a student, censored multiple student groups, initiated four investigations of students, and required a student to participate in “Decision-Making” and “Conflict Coaching” workshops. Each of these incidents occurred in either 2022 or 2023. The suspension is the only incident that would have impacted Syracuse’s overall score last year. [20]  

Syracuse University’s decline in the College Free Speech Rankings is not solely due to an expanded universe of student sanctions. We also recorded three deplatformings, all of which occurred in 2023. All these recent incidents — the student sanctions and the 2022 and 2023 deplatformings — may have influenced student survey responses. Last year, Syracuse ranked 15 on “Openness,” 17 on “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” and 123 on “Administrative Support.” This year, it ranks 138, 109, and 157, respectively, on these components.

Barnard College: Barnard’s speech climate was radically altered after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel. A month after the attack, the college suspended student groups Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace and canceled an event the groups were co-sponsoring featuring Palestinian writer and poet Mohammed el-Kurd. [21]  

Earlier this year, protesters attempted to disrupt the incoming president’s inaugural speech and shouted over her as she began her remarks. On another occasion, administrators rejected a panel discussion, forcing student organizers at the last minute to move it off of Barnard’s campus to a location at Columbia University and livestream the event over Zoom. [22]  

The school also placed students under investigation for participating in an “unauthorized” protest and called students into an "administrative conduct meeting" for hanging a pro-Palestinian banner outside their dormitory windows during a campus protest, violating a policy prohibiting placing items outside windows. [23]

All of these incidents occurred after October 7.

Barnard also performed poorly on many of the survey-based components of the rankings, finishing in the bottom 15 on “Self-Censorship” (240), second-to-last on “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” and dead last on “Administrative Support.” As already mentioned, Barnard’s “Administrative Support” score is more than two standard deviations below the next-worst school, Harvard University. This suggests that students have noticed how their administration has responded to expression it dislikes.

Warning Colleges

Hillsdale College, with an overall score of 46.73 of 100, outperformed all of the other “Warning” schools in the rankings by at least 10 points. The overall scores of the other five Warning schools range from 17.49 (Saint Louis University) to 34.91 (Liberty University). The table below presents their overall scores.

Table 2: Warning Colleges

Campus Free Expression Since October 7, 2023

The expression climate on American college and university campuses radically changed in fall 2023 with the flaring military hostilities between Hamas and Israel. For instance, in 2023 we recorded 156 deplatforming attempts on American college and university campuses: a record number. Of these attempts, 54 involve a controversy over expression regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This year, as of this writing, we’ve recorded 110 deplatforming attempts, and 75 of them involve a controversy over expression regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [24]  

In April, campus tensions escalated once again when students protesting Israel’s military actions in Gaza set up encampments on campuses across the country. 

2024 Student Encampment Protests

How did the student encampment protests impact the state of free expression on America’s college campuses?

This section will briefly dive deeper into how student survey responses changed during the encampment protests at Columbia University — and at its affiliated undergraduate women’s college, Barnard College —  the epicenter of this protest movement. It will also explore the impact of the encampments on student responses at the University of Southern California, a university in a different region of the country where post-October 7 campus encampment protests also took place. [25]

Columbia University: In addition to setting up encampments at Columbia, student protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, a campus academic building. University administrators called the police to campus multiple times. After being called to campus by the administration, the New York City police arrested students on more than one occasion. Administrators then modified commencement ceremony plans. [26]  

All of this appears to have impacted how students perceive Columbia’s administration. 

Prior to the campus encampments which began on April 17, about 5 in 10 Columbia students said that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that their administration clearly protects speech on campus. During the encampments, 6 in 10 Columbia students said it is “not at all” or “not very” clear. Much of this shift is the result of more Columbia students saying it is “not at all” clear that their administration protects speech on campus — 26% after the start of the encampments compared to 14% before them. Before the encampments, 37% of Columbia students said it is “not at all” or “not very” likely that the administration would defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy. During the encampments, 46% said the same. 

The administration’s response to the encampments appears to have also impacted student self-censorship on campus. Prior to the encampments, when asked how often they feel like they cannot express their opinion because of how a student, professor, or the administration would respond, 27% of Columbia students said they feel this way “at least a couple of times a week.” After the start of the encampments, 36% of Columbia students said the same. Much of this increase is the result of a rise in the percentage of students who said they self-censor “very often,” meaning “nearly every day,” from 4% before the encampments to 15% after the start of the encampments.

Whether a school truly holds free expression as a core value is revealed when that school is tested by controversy. If the past year is any indication, a lot of America’s colleges and universities are failing the test.

Students also reported self-censoring more frequently after the start of the encampments than before them in conversations with other students, conversations with professors, and in classroom discussions.

Barnard College:  We already noted that Barnard ranks dead last on “Administrative Support” and suggested that this ranking is the result of the administration’s response to campus events in the wake of October 7. An analysis of Barnard student responses from before and after the encampment protests started suggests that this is indeed the case. 

Barnard students did not believe it is clear that their administration protects free speech even before the encampment protests started: 36% said it is “not at all” clear that the administration protects free speech on campus and 32% said it is “not very” clear. During the encampments, these percentages only rose. Forty-seven percent of Barnard students said it is “not at all” clear and 33% said it is “not very” clear that the administration protects free speech on campus. Prior to the encampments, 14% of Barnard students said it is “very” or “extremely” clear that the administration  does protect speech on campus. After the encampment protests started only 3% of Barnard students said the same. 

When we asked Barnard students how likely their administration would be to defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy, a similar pattern emerged. Before the encampments, 13% said the administration is “not at all” likely to defend a speaker’s rights, and 41% said it is “not very” likely to do so. During the encampments, these percentages increased to 26% and 47%, respectively.

Just like at Columbia, self-censorship among Barnard students noticeably increased after the start of the encampment protests. Prior to the encampments, when asked how often they feel like they cannot express their opinion because of how a student, professor, or the administration would respond, 32% of Barnard students said they feel this way “fairly often,” meaning “at least a couple of times a week.” After the encampments began this percentage increased to 59%. After the encampments began, 31% of Barnard students said they self-censor “very often,” meaning “nearly every day.” Only 10% said the same before the encampment protests.

University of Southern California:  In fall 2023, just before October 7, an Armenian student group at USC and others protested a campus speech by Hasan Murat Mercan, objecting to Murat Mercan's pro-Turkish stance in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Had the protesters successfully canceled or disrupted the event, they would also have prevented speeches by the Azerbaijani consul general and American diplomat James F. Jeffrey. However, the university removed the disruptive protesters from the venue. Protesters physically assaulted Murat Mercan after he left the venue.

USC canceling valedictorian’s commencement speech looks like calculated censorship

The university’s move, citing vague ‘safety concerns’ appears designed to placate critics of the student’s Israel criticism.

Then, in the spring, USC canceled valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s commencement speech, claiming allowing the address to proceed would pose “substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement.” Yet, there is no evidence that the university received any threats or took any steps to secure the event before it canceled the speech. In fact, the university appears to have been motivated by Tabassum's social media posts which criticized Israel. [27] Making matters worse, after students and faculty objected to the cancellation, the university canceled  all of its commencement speakers. These speakers included Jon Chu, Billie Jean King, Maria Rosario Jackson, and Marcia McNutt. [28]  

Prior to the start of nationwide campus encampment protests, 88% of USC students said it is at “somewhat,” “very,” or “extremely” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus. Just 12% said that it is “not very” or “not at all” clear that it does so. After the start of the encampments, however, student perceptions changed. Only roughly half of students said it is at least “somewhat” clear that their administration protects free speech. The other half said it is “not at all” or “not very” clear. As with Columbia and Barnard, a similar issue emerged when we asked USC students how likely their administration would be to defend a speaker’s rights during a controversy. Before the encampments, only 3% said the administration is “not at all” likely to defend a speaker’s rights, whereas after the start of the encampments, 23% said the same. 

Higher percentages of USC students reported discomfort expressing controversial views publicly on campus during the encampments. Prior to the encampments, 53% said they feel “very” or “somewhat” uncomfortable expressing controversial political views on a social media account tied to their name. After the start of the encampments, 67% said the same. When we asked USC students about their comfort publicly disagreeing with a professor, expressing their views during an in-class discussion, and expressing their views in a common campus space both before and after the start of the encampments, we found similar, though smaller, increases in discomfort after the start of the encampments. However, we found no discernible difference in student comfort disagreeing with a professor in a written assignment, a more private action, before versus after the start of the encampments.

National Data

Since 2020, we have surveyed more than 200,000 undergraduates for the College Free Speech Rankings. This year’s survey is the largest ever conducted on undergraduate attitudes about and experience with free expression on college campuses, with a sample size of 58,807. The remainder of this report summarizes the survey’s findings at the national level. All data presented in this section are weighted to provide a nationally representative sample of four-year college undergraduate students.

Student Political Views

Of the students surveyed, 47% identified as politically liberal, 21% identified as conservative, and 16% identified as moderate. The remaining students identified as Democratic Socialists (3%), Libertarians (2%), something else (4%), or said they “haven’t thought much about this” (8%). Seven students (0.01%) did not provide an answer.

Unsurprisingly, 228 of the 257 schools surveyed had a predominantly liberal student body, while only 29 schools had a predominantly conservative one. This latter group includes four of the six “Warning” schools: Baylor University, Brigham Young University, Hillsdale College, and Liberty University. 

At two schools — Kenyon College and Pitzer College —  only one student identified as conservative. At Macalester College, not a single student identified as conservative. The average liberal-to-conservative student ratio on the 228 predominantly liberal campuses is 7:1, with an extremely unbalanced maximum of 85:1 at Kenyon. In contrast, the average conservative-to-liberal student ratio on the 29 predominantly conservative campuses is 2:1, with a maximum of 5:1 at Hillsdale. With the exception of the University of Mississippi, which has a conservative-to-liberal student ratio of 4:1, the predominantly conservative campuses have conservative-to-liberal student ratios of 2:1 or less.

How Do Students Perceive the Administration’s Support for Free Speech?

More than 2 in 5 students (42%) reported that it is only “somewhat” clear that their administration protects free speech on campus, while roughly a quarter (24%) reported that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that it does so. 

Additionally, 47% reported that their administration would only be “somewhat” likely to defend a speaker’s right to express their views if a speech controversy occurred on campus. More than a quarter, 28%, reported that their administration would be “not at all” or “not very” likely to do so. 

More than half of students identified the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a topic that is “difficult to have an open and honest conversation about” on campus, up from 26% last year.

Although Middle Eastern students make up a small portion of the sample (0.5%), their lack of confidence in their administration’s willingness to protect free speech on campus stands out in comparison to the views of other racial and ethnic groups. A third of Middle Eastern students reported that it is “not at all” or “not very” clear that the administration protects free speech on campus, and 37% reported that the administration would be “not at all” or “not very” likely to defend a speaker’s rights during a speech controversy. 

How Comfortable Are Students Expressing Political Views on Campus?

Overall, students reported low levels of comfort expressing their views on controversial political topics across five different contexts on campus. 

The percentage of students who reported feeling “very” or “somewhat” comfortable ranges from a low of 34%, when expressing an unpopular political opinion to other students on a social media account tied to one’s name, to a high of 50%, when expressing views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space or when disagreeing with a professor in a written assignment.

Male students were more likely than female students to say they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views in a number of campus contexts:

• 52% of male students and 48% of female students said they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space such as a quad, dining hall, or lounge.
• 50% of male students and 44% of female students said they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion.
• 44% of male students and 34% of female students said they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic.

Very liberal students were also more likely than all other students on campus — including somewhat liberal and slightly liberal students — to say they are “very” or “somewhat” comfortable expressing their views.

How Often Do Students Self-Censor on Campus?

On a positive note, college students’ concern about self-censorship has declined. This year, 17% of students said they “very” or “fairly” often feel like they cannot express their opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond. Last year, this percentage was 20%, and in 2022 it was 22% [29] .

Like last year, we provided students with a definition of self-censorship. [30] We then asked three questions about how often they self-censor on campus. [31] A quarter of students said they self-censor “very” or “fairly” often during conversations with other students. And about a quarter of students said they self-censor “very” or “fairly” often during classroom discussions, in conversations with professors, and in conversations with other students. 

Middle Eastern students reported self-censoring more often than Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, and multiracial students. 

Very conservative students reported self-censoring most often, with roughly a third (34%) saying they do so “very” or “fairly” often. About a quarter of somewhat conservative students (24%) reported self-censoring “very” or “fairly” often, as did about a fifth of slightly conservative students (22%). 

In contrast, only 15% of very liberal students reported self-censoring “very” or “fairly” often. Twelve percent of somewhat liberal students, 13% of slightly liberal students, and 17% of moderate students said the same.

Which Topics Do Students Find Difficult to Discuss?

More than half of students (54%) identified the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a topic that is “difficult to have an open and honest conversation about” on campus, up from 26% last year. This is only the second time in five years that more than half of all students surveyed identified a particular topic as difficult to “have an open and honest conversation about” on campus — in 2021, 51% of students said that racial inequality is difficult to discuss.

Of the 2,069 Jewish students who responded to this survey question, roughly three-quarters (74%) said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss on campus. About three-fifths of agnostic students (63%), Muslim students (59%), and atheist students (58%) said the same. Slightly more than half of Protestant students (54%) and Catholic students (53%) agreed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss on campus, while slightly lower percentages of Buddhist students (49%) and Hindu students (45%) said the same.

College Protests and the First Amendment

Issue pages.

What are your rights when it comes to protesting on a college campus? FIRE explains your civil liberties on campus during times of protest.

At some schools the percentage of students who said that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a difficult topic to discuss on campus is considerably higher than 54%. 

At the following schools, at least 80% of students said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to discuss: 

• Barnard College (88%)
• Pomona College (85%)
• Brandeis University (84%)
• American University (84%)
• Vassar College (82%)

At the following schools, at least three-quarters of students said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to discuss:

• Mount Holyoke College (79%)
• Skidmore College (79%)
• Tulane University (79%)
• Columbia University (78%)
• Scripps College (78%)
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (77%)
• Colorado College (76%) 
• Washington University in St. Louis (76%)
• Bowdoin College (75%)
• George Washington University (75%)
• Middlebury College (75%)
• University of Denver (75%)

When asked which topics are “difficult to have an open and honest conversation about” on campus, 45% of students identified abortion, 41% identified transgender rights, 36% identified racial inequality, and 36% identified gun control. From last year to this year, the percentage of students who identified each of these topics as difficult to discuss declined.

Table 3. Trends in difficult topics to discuss on campus, 2020-present

Conservative students, and particularly very conservative students, were more likely than liberal or moderate students to say that abortion, transgender rights, and racial inequality are difficult topics to discuss on campus. This pattern reverses for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Liberal students, particularly very liberal students, were more likely than conservative or moderate students to say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to discuss.

How Acceptable Do Students Consider Different Forms of Disruptive Conduct?

Although most students oppose the use of disruptive tactics to stop a campus speech, disappointing proportions find such tactics acceptable to some degree (answering “always,” “sometimes,” or “rarely”). 

This year, just over half of students (52%) reported that blocking other students from attending a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable, up from 45% in 2023 and 37% in 2022. Even more concerning, about a third of students (32%) reported that using violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable, up from 27% last year and 20% in 2022.

While shouting down a speaker is nonviolent, it is still disruptive and threatens free expression. Successful shoutdowns are examples of the “heckler’s veto” — when an individual or group “vetoes” a speech by severely and substantially disrupting it so that it cannot continue. This year, more than two-thirds of students (68%) said that shouting down a speaker is at least “rarely” acceptable, an increase from 63% last year and 62% in 2022.

Students’ political identification correlates with their level of acceptance of disruptive conduct. 

Very liberal students were particularly accepting of disruptive behaviors:

• 84% of very liberal students said that shouting down a speaker is at least “rarely” acceptable.
• 66% of very liberal students said that blocking other students from attending a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable.
• 38% of very liberal students said that using violence to stop a campus speech is at least “rarely” acceptable.

How Tolerant Are Students of Controversial Speakers?

Each year, thousands of lectures and planned talks occur on college campuses across the country without incident. Some of these events spark controversy over the speakers’ views or previous remarks, leading students to attempt to get the speaker uninvited from speaking on campus. These deplatforming attempts can include demanding the silencing of speakers or those who invited them, calling for college officials to disinvite invited guest speakers, disrupting events, and even using violence to prevent expression from occurring. 

Political tolerance has long been assessed by asking people whether they would grant civil liberties — primarily freedom of speech — to nonconformists and controversial or offensive speakers. [32] Therefore, this survey asks students whether, regardless of their own views on the topic, their school should allow a speaker on campus who has expressed one of the following eight ideas: [33]

• “Abortion should be completely illegal.”
• “Black Lives Matter is a hate group.”
• “Transgender people have a mental disorder.”
• “The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution.”
• “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.” 
• “Children should be able to transition without parental consent.”
• “Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security.”
• “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

Overall, a majority of students said that six of the eight speakers should “definitely” or “probably” not be allowed on campus. Roughly two-thirds of students opposed the speaker who said “Transgender people have a mental disorder” (68%), and the same percentage opposed the speaker who said “Black Lives Matter is a hate group.” At least half opposed the speakers who said the following: 

• “The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution” (51%). 
• “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” (53%).
• “Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security” (59%). 

In contrast, 71% of students said that a speaker who said “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” should “definitely” or “probably” be allowed on campus, and 56% said the same about a speaker who said “Children should be able to transition without parental consent.”

Similar to the student responses on the different forms of disruptive conduct, student opposition to controversial speakers often correlated with political identity. 

A majority of very liberal students said that all three controversial liberal speakers should “definitely” or “probably” be allowed on campus, with support ranging from 60% (“The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution”) to 74% (“Children should be able to transition without parental consent”). This is not the case for somewhat liberal students or slightly liberal students, a majority of whom opposed allowing on campus the speaker who said “The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution” and the speaker who said “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.

Conclusions

We have good reason to be concerned about the state of free expression on American college and university campuses. Attempts to deplatform campus speakers for their expression are at record levels, [34] and a majority of college undergraduates oppose inviting controversial speakers to campus. [35] During the encampment protests students occupied buildings and attempted to disrupt a number of commencement ceremonies. [36] Before and after the start of these protests, administrators suppressed student and faculty speech and, in some cases, even called in police to arrest students. [37]  

Many colleges’ Free Speech Rankings scores reflect their responses to these events. 

For instance, some of the bottom ranked schools bungled their response to student protests. Stifling expression is not the answer, and arbitrarily applying speech code policies to punish students for some kinds of speech but not others undermines an administration’s credibility. This is reflected by the fact that many of the bottom ranked schools have poor “Administrative Support” scores. A deeper analysis of survey data collected during the encampment protests at Barnard College, Columbia University, and the University of Southern California found that student confidence that the administration protects free speech plummeted from before the start of the encampments to after the encampments were established.

Indiana University and the University of Texas at Austin both ranked in the bottom 10. At Indiana University, this followed reports of snipers stationed on the roofs of campus buildings after the administration called the police to shut down an encampment protest. At the University of Texas at Austin, it followed the university preemptively calling the police to campus, presumably to prevent students from establishing an encampment. [38] Both of these schools also have poor “Administrative Support” scores, ranking 240 and 228, respectively. 

Contrast this with the top schools in the rankings. Encampment protests also occurred at many of these schools. However, they largely resisted the urge to punish students and faculty for their expression. 

Beyond their responses to the encampments, many of the top schools have established a clear pattern of good behavior. 

Not a single deplatforming has occurred at any of them since 2020, and sanctions of faculty and students are rare. The exception is Claremont McKenna, where three scholar sanctions occurred in quick succession in 2021 and 2022: These three sanctions are likely the only thing keeping Claremont McKenna out of the rankings’ top spot. The University of Virginia and Michigan Technological University rank 1 and 2, respectively, because on multiple occasions they clearly stood up for free speech on campus.

This year’s rankings not only capture the expression climate on U.S. college and university campuses, but also reflect current events. The results also reveal the utility of including additional campus behavioral metrics: data from FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database, Scholars Under Fire database, and forthcoming Students Under Fire database. 

Ultimately, these data send a clear message to college and university administrators: Leadership matters. Contrast the behavior of administrators at UVA and Michigan Tech with that of administrators at Barnard, Columbia, and Harvard. 

Colleges and universities can do a lot to set the tone of the expression climate on campus. For starters, they can maintain clear policies that defend expressive rights, not ambiguous ones that administrators can apply arbitrarily whenever they see fit. With that said, maintaining clear speech-protective policies is not enough. Whether a school truly holds free expression as a core value is revealed when that school is tested by controversy. 

If the past year is any indication, a lot of America’s colleges and universities are failing the test.

Methodology

The College Free Speech Rankings survey was developed by FIRE and administered by College Pulse. No donors to the project took part in designing or conducting the survey. The survey was fielded from January 25 through June 17, 2024. These data come from a sample of 58,807 undergraduates who were then enrolled full-time in four-year degree programs at one of a list of 258 colleges and universities in the United States. The margin of error for the U.S. undergraduate population is +/- 0.4 of a percentage point, and the margin of error for college student sub-demographics ranges from 2-5 percentage points.

The initial sample was drawn from College Pulse’s American College Student Panel™, which includes more than 850,000 verified undergraduate students and recent alumni from schools within a range of more than 1,500 two- and four-year colleges and universities in all 50 states. Panel members were recruited by a number of methods to help ensure student diversity in the panel population. These methods include web advertising, permission-based email campaigns, and partnerships with university-affiliated organizations. To ensure the panel reflects the diverse backgrounds and experiences of the American college population, College Pulse recruited panelists from a wide variety of institutions. The panel includes students attending large public universities, small private colleges, online universities, historically Black colleges such as Howard University, women’s colleges such as Smith College, and religiously-affiliated colleges such as Brigham Young University. 

College Pulse uses a two-stage validation process to ensure that all its surveys include only students currently enrolled in two-year or four-year colleges or universities. Students are required to provide an “.edu” email address to join the panel and, for this survey, had to acknowledge that they are currently enrolled full-time in a four-year degree program. All invitations to complete surveys were sent using the student’s “.edu” email address or through a notification in the College Pulse app, available on iOS and Android platforms. 

College Pulse applies a post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions from multiple data sources, including the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The “weight” rebalances the sample based on a number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables to produce a representative sample of four year undergraduate students in the United States. 

This year College Pulse introduced a similar post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions from multiple data sources, including the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The “school universe weight” rebalances the sample based on a number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables to produce a representative sample of four year undergraduate students from the 257 colleges and universities surveyed. 

College Pulse also applies a post-stratification adjustment based on demographic distributions from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). This “school weight” rebalances the sample from each individual school surveyed based on a number of important benchmark attributes, such as race, gender, class year, voter registration status, and financial aid status. The sample weighting is accomplished using an iterative proportional fitting (IFP) process that simultaneously balances the distributions of all variables to produce a representative sample of students at each individual school. 

All weights are trimmed to prevent individual interviews from having too much influence on the final results and to ensure over-sampled population groups do not completely lose their voice.

The use of these weights in statistical analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the target populations. Even with these adjustments, surveys may be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context, and order effects. 

For further information, please see:  https://collegepulse.com/methodology .

Free Speech Rankings

The College Free Speech Rankings are based on a composite score of 14 components, seven of which assess student perceptions of different aspects of the speech climate on their campus. The other seven assess behavior by administrators, faculty, and students regarding free expression on campus. Higher scores indicate a better campus climate for free speech and expression.

Student Perceptions

The student perception components include: 

• Comfort Expressing Ideas: Students were asked how comfortable they feel expressing their views on controversial topics in five different campus contexts (e.g., “in class,” or “in the dining hall”). Options ranged from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable.” Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate greater comfort expressing ideas. The maximum number of points is 20.
• Self-Censorship: Students were provided with a definition of self-censorship and then asked how often they self-censored in three different contexts on campus (e.g., “in a classroom discussion”). Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate self-censoring less often. The maximum number of points is 15. [39]  
• Tolerance for Liberal Speakers: Students were asked whether three speakers espousing views potentially offensive to conservatives (e.g., “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.”) should be allowed on campus, regardless of whether they personally agree with the speaker’s message. Options ranged from “definitely should not allow this speaker” to “definitely should allow this speaker” and were coded so that higher scores indicate more tolerance of the speaker (i.e., more support for allowing the speaker on campus). The maximum number of points is 12.
• Tolerance for Conservative Speakers: Students were also asked whether three speakers espousing views potentially offensive to liberals (e.g., “Black Lives Matter is a hate group”) should be allowed on campus, regardless of whether they personally agree with the speaker’s message. Scoring was performed in the same manner as it was for the “Tolerance for Liberal Speakers” subcomponent, and the maximum number of points is 12.
• Disruptive Conduct: Students were asked how acceptable it is to engage in different methods of protest against a campus speaker, including “shouting down a speaker or trying to prevent them from speaking on campus,” “blocking other students from attending a campus speech,” and “using violence to stop a campus speech.” Options ranged from “always acceptable” to “never acceptable” and were coded so that higher scores indicate less acceptance of disruptive conduct. The maximum number of points is 12. 
• Administrative Support: Students were asked how clear it is that their administration protects free speech on campus and how likely the administration would be to defend a speaker’s right to express their views if a controversy over speech occurred on campus. For the administrative clarity question, options ranged from “not at all clear” to “extremely clear,” and for the administrative controversy question, options ranged from “not at all likely” to “extremely likely.” Options were coded so that higher scores indicate greater clarity and a greater likelihood of defending a speaker’s rights. The maximum number of points is 10. 
• Openness: Finally, students were asked which of 20 issues (e.g., “abortion,” “freedom of speech,” “gun control,” and “racial inequality”), if any, are difficult to have open conversations about on campus. Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate fewer issues being selected. The maximum number of points is 20.

Two additional constructs, “Mean Tolerance” and “Tolerance Difference,” were computed from the “Tolerance for Liberal/Conservative Speaker” components. “Tolerance Difference” was calculated by subtracting “Tolerance for Conservative Speakers” from “Tolerance for Liberal Speakers” and then taking the absolute value (so that a bias in favor of either side would be treated the same).

Campus Behavioral Metrics

Schools received bonus points — described in more detail below — for unequivocally supporting free expression in response to speech controversies by taking the following actions indicative of a positive campus climate for free speech: 

• Supporting free expression during a deplatforming campaign, as recorded in FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database. [40]  
• Supporting a scholar whose speech rights were threatened during a free speech controversy, as recorded in FIRE's Scholars Under Fire database. [41]  
• Supporting students and student groups, as recorded in the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings behavioral metrics documentation that is available online. [42]

Schools were penalized — described in more detail below — for taking the following actions indicative of poor campus climate for free speech: 

• Successfully deplatforming a speaker, as recorded in FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database.
• Sanctioning a scholar (e.g., placing under investigation, suspending, or terminating a scholar), as recorded in FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database. 
• Sanctioning a student or student groups, as recorded in the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings behavioral metrics documentation that is available online.

To be included in this year’s rankings, an incident that resulted in a bonus or penalty had to have been recorded by June 15, 2024, and had to have been fully assessed by FIRE’s research staff, who determined whether the incident warranted inclusion. 

In response to the encampment protests, FIRE and College Pulse reopened the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings survey on any campus with an encampment. This allowed us to collect survey data from students while the encampments were taking place. [43] That means that this year’s College Free Speech Rankings provide a treasure trove of data on the evolving state of free expression at American colleges and universities.

FIRE’s Spotlight ratings — our ratings of the written policies governing student speech at nearly 500 institutions of higher education in the United States — also factored into each school's overall score. Three substantive ratings are possible: “red light,” “yellow light,” and “green light.” A “red light” rating indicates that the institution has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. A “yellow light” rating indicates that an institution maintains at least one policy that places a clear restriction on a more limited amount of protected expression, or one that, by virtue of vague wording, could too easily be used to restrict protected expression. A “green light” rating indicates that an institution maintains no policies that seriously threaten speech, although this rating does not indicate whether a college actively supports free expression. [44]  

Finally, a fourth rating, “Warning,” is assigned to a private college or university when its policies clearly and consistently state that it prioritizes other values over a commitment to free speech. Warning schools, therefore, were not ranked, and their overall scores are presented separately in this report. [45]

For this year’s rankings, the cutoff date for assessing a school’s speech code policies was June 15, 2024. Any changes to a school’s Spotlight rating that occurred since then will be reflected in the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings.

Overall Score

To create an overall score for each college, we first summed the following student subcomponents: “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” “Self-Censorship,” “Mean Tolerance,” “Disruptive Conduct,” “Administrative Support,” and “Openness.” Then, we subtracted the “Tolerance Difference.” By including the “Mean Tolerance” (as opposed to including “Tolerance for Liberal Speakers” and “Tolerance for Conservative Speakers” separately) and subtracting the “Tolerance Difference,” the score accounted for the possibility that ideologically homogeneous student bodies may result in a campus that  appears to have a strong culture of free expression but is actually hostile to the views of an ideological minority — whose views students may almost never encounter on campus.

Then, to further account for the speech climate on an individual campus, we incorporated behavioral components. A school earned two bonus points each time it unequivocally defended free expression during a campus speech controversy — a rating of “High Honors” for its public response to a speech controversy. For instance, when the student government at Arizona State University opposed a registered student group’s invitation to Mohammed el-Kurd to speak on campus, and other members of the campus community petitioned the university to disinvite el-Kurd, a university spokesperson responded: 

The university is committed to a safe environment where the free exchange of ideas can take place . . . As a public university, ASU adheres to the First Amendment and strives to ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression. All individuals and groups on campus have the right to express their opinions, whatever those opinions may be, as long as they do not violate the student code of conduct, student organization policies, and do not infringe on another student’s individual rights.

el-Kurd spoke successfully on campus, and we awarded ASU two bonus points.

A school earned one bonus point for responding to a speech controversy by making a public statement that strongly defends the First Amendment but is not as full-throated a defense as a “High Honors” statement. These statements received the rating of “Honors.” For instance, at New York University, NYU Law Students for Palestine and Jewish Law Students for a Free Palestine called for the cancellation of an event featuring Robert Howse and Michal Cotler-Wunsh, because Cotler-Wunsh supports the occupation of Palestine. The event was co-sponsored by a student group, NYU’s Jewish Law Students Association, as well as the president's office and the Bronfman Center for Jewish Life. NYU did not cancel the event, and protesters interrupted Cotler-Wunsh several times during his remarks before voluntarily leaving, allowing the event to resume and conclude successfully. The dean of the law school said the following in response:  

The principles of free speech and inquiry are complemented by debate, challenge and protest . . . While dissent may be vigorous, it must not interfere with the speaker’s ability to communicate — which is exactly why, should those interrupters not have left on their own accord, they would be subject to discipline.

We awarded one point for this response, which occurred in 2024, then we set this bonus to decrease by one-quarter of a point for each year that passes. 

We also applied penalties when a school sanctioned a scholar, student, or student group, or deplatformed a speaker. 

A school lost up to five points each time it sanctioned (e.g., investigated, suspended, or terminated) a scholar. When the sanction did not result in termination the school received a penalty of one point, which we set to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year: This meant penalizing a school a full point for sanctioning a scholar in 2024, three-quarters of a point for sanctioning a scholar in 2023, half a point for sanctioning a scholar in 2022, and one-quarter of a point for sanctioning a scholar in 2021. However, if the administration terminated the scholar, we subtracted three points, and if that scholar was tenured, we subtracted five points. We applied full penalties for termination for four years, then set them to decline by one-quarter of a point each year. So, a penalty for termination that occurred in 2020 has just now started to decay.

A school lost up to three points for sanctioning students or student groups. When the sanction did not result in expulsion, the revocation of acceptance, the denial or revoking of recognition, suspension, or termination of a student’s campus employment (e.g, as a resident assistant) the school received a penalty of one point. Like with scholar sanctions that did not result in termination, we set these penalties to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year. If a school suspended a student or terminated their campus employment, we penalized it two points. We also set these penalties to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year. However, if a school denied or revoked a student group’s recognition, expelled a student, or revoked their acceptance, it was penalized three points. We applied these penalties in full for four years, then set them to decline by one-quarter of a point each year.

Regarding deplatforming attempts, a school was penalized one point if an invited speaker withdrew because of the controversy caused by their upcoming appearance on campus or if an event was postponed in response to a controversy. We set this penalty to decrease by a quarter of a point each year. Schools where an attempted disruption occurred received a penalty of two points. We applied this penalty for four years, then set it to decrease by one-quarter of a point each year. Schools with deplatforming attempts that resulted in an event cancellation, a preemptive rejection of a speaker, the removal of artwork on display, the revocation of a speaker’s invitation, or a substantial event disruption were penalized three points. We applied these penalties in full for four years, then set them to decline by one-quarter of a point each year.

After we applied bonuses and penalties, we standardized each school’s score by group — Warning schools and other schools — making the average score in each group 50.00 and the standard deviation 10.00. Following standardization, we added one standard deviation to the final score of colleges who received a green light rating for their speech codes. We also subtracted half a standard deviation from the final score of colleges that received a yellow light rating, one standard deviation from the final score of schools that received a red light rating, and two standard deviations from schools that received a Warning rating.

Overall Score = (50 + (Z Raw Overall Score )(10)) + FIRE Rating

Campus Speech Controversies

Deplatforming attempts.

FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database documents efforts to censor invited speakers, artwork, film screenings, or performances (e.g., comedy shows, plays) on public and private American college and university campuses  from 1998-present. Schools included in the rankings received bonuses for unequivocally defending free expression during a deplatforming campaign from 2020-mid-2024. They received penalties for successfully deplatforming a speaker or for being the site of a substantial event disruption (when one or more people unsuccessfully attempt to disrupt an event, entirely prevent a speaker from speaking, or prevent an audience from hearing the speaker) within the same time frame. [46]

At the schools surveyed, a total of 102 successful deplatforming incidents (60%) occurred. They include: [47]  

• 45 substantial event disruptions, when one or more people substantially disrupt or entirely prevent a speaker from speaking or prevent an audience from hearing the speaker. 
• 36 revocations, when a speaker’s invitation is rescinded. 
• Six rejections, when a school or the student government preemptively rejects a speaker. 
• Seven withdrawals, when a speaker cancels an event in response to a disinvitation campaign. 
• Three postponements, when an event is postponed to a later date due to controversy. 
• Six cancellations of performances or film screenings.
• Two removals of displayed artwork. 

All of these deplatforming incidents negatively impacted a school's overall score.

FIRE also recorded 44 attempted disruptions at the 257 schools surveyed. These incidents also negatively impacted a school's overall score.

The 102 successful deplatforming attempts occurred on 71 of the 257 campuses. Harvard University and New York University, two of the lowest ranked schools, experienced four successful deplatformings each. Dartmouth College, Syracuse University, the University of Houston, the University of New Mexico, and the University of Southern California each experienced three successful deplatformings since 2020.

The following 21 schools were each the site of more than one successful deplatforming incident and altogether account for 53 of the 102 successful deplatforming attempts (52%). A number of these schools — Barnard College, Harvard, NYU, Syracuse, the University of Pennsylvania, and USC — also rank in the bottom 10 of this year’s College Free Speech Rankings with either a “Very Poor” or “Abysmal” speech climate: 

• Harvard University
• New York University
• Dartmouth College
• Syracuse University
• University of Houston
• University of New Mexico
• University of Southern California
• Barnard College
• Brown University
• Indiana University
• Pennsylvania State University
• San Jose State University
• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Davis
• University of California, Los Angeles
• University of Florida
• University of Michigan
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Utah
• University of Vermont

Harvard University also experienced four attempted disruptions since 2020. Only seven other schools experienced more than one attempted disruption in this time frame. The University of Iowa experienced three attempted disruptions, and Columbia University, Michigan State University, Stanford University, Tufts University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Texas at Austin each experienced two attempted disruptions.

We recorded 29 instances of schools supporting free expression in response to a deplatforming campaign. In all of these instances a school received a bonus that either positively impacted its overall score or mitigated the damage done to its score by a successful deplatforming attempt. 

Only Georgetown University and the University of Virginia unequivocally defended free expression during more than one deplatforming campaign, and they received multiple bonuses in the rankings for doing so.

Scholars Under Fire

FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database covers expression-related incidents from 2000-present. It documents how and why scholars faced calls for sanction, how scholars and administrators responded, and what (if any) sanctions scholars experienced. Schools included in the rankings received bonuses or penalties based on their responses to these kinds of controversies from 2020-mid-2024. [48]

At the schools surveyed, a total of 148 scholar sanctions occurred. They include: 

• 37 scholars who were terminated. 
• 11 scholars who resigned. 
• 26 scholars who were suspended. 
• 10 scholars who were demoted. 
• 36 scholars who were censored. 
• Three scholars who were required to undergo training. 
• 25 scholars who were investigated. [49]  

Each of these incidents negatively impacted a school's overall score. On 11 occasions, a college or university unequivocally defended a scholar’s free expression in response to a sanction attempt. These incidents positively impacted a school’s overall score.

The 148 scholar sanctions occurred on 83 of the 257 campuses surveyed. Since 2020, eight scholar sanctions occurred at Columbia University, six occurred at Harvard University, and five occurred at George Washington University. The following 14 schools were each the site of three or more scholar sanctions and altogether accounted for 61 of the 148 scholar sanctions that factored into the College Free Speech Rankings (43%):

• Columbia University
• George Washington University
• University of Central Florida
• University of Texas at Austin
• Yale University
• Claremont McKenna College
• Emory University
• Texas A&M University
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

As with successful deplatformings, a number of these schools — Columbia, Harvard, NYU, IU, and Penn — also landed in the bottom 10 of the rankings with a “Poor,” “Very Poor” or “Abysmal” speech climate.

We recorded 12 instances of schools supporting free expression in response to a scholar sanction attempt. In all of these instances, a school received a bonus that positively impacted its overall score. 

The University of California, Berkeley, is the only school that supported a scholar’s free expression on more than one occasion. The following schools supported a scholar’s free expression on one occasion: Boise State University, George Washington University, Princeton University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia, and Yale University. 

Students Under Fire

FIRE’s Students Under Fire database covers expression-related incidents from 2020-present. It documents how and why students or student groups faced calls for sanction, how administrators responded, and what (if any) sanctions students experienced. Schools included in the rankings received bonuses or penalties based on their responses to these kinds of controversies from 2020-mid-2024. [50]

At the colleges surveyed, a total of 204 student sanctions occurred. They include: 

• Four students who were expelled. 
• Six students whose acceptance to the school or scholarship was revoked. 
• 10 student groups whose recognition was denied or rescinded. 
• 21 students or student groups who were suspended. 
• 73 students or student groups who were censored. 
• 62 students or student groups who were placed under investigation. 
• Seven students who were required to undergo training or issue an apology or other statement. 
• Three students who were terminated from their campus employment. 
• 18 students or student groups whose sanctions were issued by the student government. 

Each of these incidents negatively impacted a school's overall score. 

The 204 student sanctions occurred on 107 of the 257 campuses surveyed. Since 2020, Syracuse University has sanctioned seven students or student groups. In the same time frame, Harvard University sanctioned six students or student groups, and Stanford University sanctioned five. The following seven schools were the site of four or more student sanctioning incidents since 2020:

• Stanford University
• American University
• Northwestern University

As with successful deplatformings and scholar sanctions, a number of these schools — Harvard, NYU, and Syracuse — also landed in the bottom 10 of this year’s College Free Speech Rankings with either a “Very Poor” or “Abysmal” speech climate.

Another 16 schools were the site of three student sanctioning incidents since 2020. This group of schools includes three more bottom-10 schools: Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Indiana University. 

We recorded 14 instances of schools supporting free expression in response to a student sanctioning attempt. In all of these instances, we awarded the school a bonus that positively impacted its overall score or mitigated the impact of a penalty it incurred. Arizona State University, which ranks 14, received three bonuses for its defense of student expression. Other notable schools that actively defended student free expression include the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, which ranks 22, and the top two schools in the rankings, the University of Virginia and Michigan Technological University.

Survey Questions and Topline Results

How clear is it to you that your college administration protects free speech on campus?

      7% Not at all clear     17% Not very clear     42% Somewhat clear     27% Very clear       7% Extremely clear

If a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on your campus, how likely is it that the administration would defend the speaker’s right to express their views?

      7% Not at all likely     21% Not very likely     47% Somewhat likely     20% Very likely       5% Extremely likely

How comfortable would you feel doing the following on your campus? [Presented in randomized order]

Publicly disagreeing with a professor about a controversial political topic.

    33% Very uncomfortable     36% Somewhat uncomfortable     23% Somewhat comfortable       9% Very comfortable

Expressing disagreement with one of your professors about a controversial political topic in a written assignment.

    25% Very uncomfortable     35% Somewhat uncomfortable     29% Somewhat comfortable     11% Very comfortable

Expressing your views on a controversial political topic during an in-class discussion.

    20% Very uncomfortable     33% Somewhat uncomfortable     34% Somewhat comfortable     13% Very comfortable

Expressing your views on a controversial political topic to other students during a discussion in a common campus space such as a quad, dining hall, or lounge.

    17% Very uncomfortable     32% Somewhat uncomfortable     35% Somewhat comfortable     14% Very comfortable

Expressing an unpopular political opinion to your fellow students on a social media account tied to your name.

    33% Very uncomfortable     34% Somewhat uncomfortable     24% Somewhat comfortable       9% Very comfortable

On your campus, how often have you felt that you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?

    17% Never     38% Rarely     28% Occasionally, once or twice a month     12% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       5% Very often, nearly every day

This next series of questions asks you about self-censorship in different settings. For the purpose of these questions, self-censorship is defined as follows:

Refraining from sharing certain views because you fear social (e.g., exclusion from social events), professional (e.g., losing job or promotion), legal (e.g., prosecution or fine), or violent (e.g., assault) consequences, whether in person or remotely (e.g., by phone or online), and whether the consequences come from state or non-state sources.

How often do you self-censor during conversations with other students on campus?

    12% Never     33% Rarely     31% Occasionally, once or twice a month     17% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       6% Very often, nearly every day

How often do you self-censor during conversations with your professors?

    12% Never     33% Rarely     30% Occasionally, once or twice a month     17% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       8% Very often, nearly every day

How often do you self-censor during classroom discussions?

    11% Never     32% Rarely     32% Occasionally, once or twice a month     18% Fairly often, a couple of times a week       8% Very often, nearly every day

How acceptable would you say it is for students to engage in the following action to protest a campus speaker? [Presented in randomized order]

Shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus.

      7% Always acceptable     30% Sometimes acceptable     32% Rarely acceptable     32% Never acceptable

Blocking other students from attending a campus speech.

      4% Always acceptable     18% Sometimes acceptable     29% Rarely acceptable     48% Never acceptable

Using violence to stop a campus speech.

      3% Always acceptable     11% Sometimes acceptable     18% Rarely acceptable     68% Never acceptable

Student groups often invite speakers to campus to express their views on a range of topics. Regardless of your own views on the topic, should your school ALLOW or NOT ALLOW a speaker on campus who promotes the following idea? [Presented in randomized order]

Transgender people have a mental disorder.

    37% Definitely should not allow this speaker     31% Probably should not allow this this speaker     20% Probably should allow this speaker     12% Definitely should allow this speaker

Abortion should be completely illegal.

    25% Definitely should not allow this speaker     28% Probably should not allow this this speaker     30% Probably should allow this speaker     15% Definitely should allow this speaker

Black Lives Matter is a hate group.

    36% Definitely should not allow this speaker     33% Probably should not allow this this speaker     21% Probably should allow this speaker     11% Definitely should allow this speaker

The Catholic church is a pedophilic institution.

    17% Definitely should not allow this speaker     34% Probably should not allow this this speaker     33% Probably should allow this speaker     15% Definitely should allow this speaker

The police are just as racist as the Klu[sic] Klux Klan. 

    20% Definitely should not allow this speaker     33% Probably should not allow this this speaker     32% Probably should allow this speaker     15% Definitely should allow this speaker

Children should be able to transition without parental consent.

    15% Definitely should not allow this speaker     28% Probably should not allow this this speaker     38% Probably should allow this speaker     18% Definitely should allow this speaker

Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security.

    26% Definitely should not allow this speaker     34% Probably should not allow this this speaker     28% Probably should allow this speaker     12% Definitely should allow this speaker

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

     8% Definitely should not allow this speaker     20% Probably should not allow this this speaker     43% Probably should allow this speaker     28% Definitely should allow this speaker

Some students say it can be difficult to have conversations about certain issues on campus. Which of the following issues, if any, would you say are difficult to have an open and honest conversation about on your campus? [Percentage selecting each option]

    45% Abortion      24% Affirmative action     13% China     14% Climate change     16% Crime     22% Economic inequality     22% Freedom of speech     31% Gay rights     29% Gender inequality     36% Gun control     29%  Hate speech     27% Immigration     54% The Israeli/Palestinian conflict     31%  The Presidential Election     31% Police misconduct     36% Racial inequality     34% Religion     29% Sexual assault     14% The Supreme Court     41% Transgender rights     12% None of the above

Note: The survey asked additional questions that were not included in the calculation of the College Free Speech Rankings. The data for these questions will be released in a separate set of analyses.

[1] Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S. (March 12, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, Part 1: Campus free speech was in trouble in 2018, and the data shows it has gotten much worse. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-1 ; 

Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S (March 21, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, part 2: When it comes to free speech, the college kids are not alright. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-2 ; 

Stevens, S. (April 12, 2024). Deplatforming attempts are surging in 2024: Buckle up, folks. It’s not even disinvitation season yet. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/deplatforming-attempts-are-surging-2024 . 

[2] Appleby, J. (July 11, 2024). University of Florida suspends student for three years over peaceful protest: In response to campus protests related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, UF made up unlawful rules to punish students for protected expression.Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/university-florida-suspends-student-three-years-over-peaceful-protest ; Coward, T. (July 2, 2024). House Oversight Committee continues chilling investigation into student groups and nonprofits. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/house-oversight-committee-continues-chilling-investigation-student-groups-and-nonprofits ; Shibley, R. (June 2, 2024). Fed investigation of Lafayette College over Israel-Hamas protests highlights new threat to free speech. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/fed-investigation-lafayette-college-over-israel-hamas-protests-highlights-new-threat-free . 

[3] Appleby J. & Piro, G. (December 18, 2023). More colleges threaten to restrict speech in wake of Penn president’s resignation: Institutions abandon their free speech protections at students’ peril. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/more-colleges-threaten-restrict-speech-wake-penn-presidents-resignation ; Eduardo, A. (January 2, 2024). In the aftermath of Claudine Gay's resignation, here's how Harvard can reform itself: With the loss of its president, America’s worst college for free speech is at another crossroads. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/aftermath-claudine-gays-resignation-heres-how-harvard-can-reform-itself . 

[4] Alonso, J. (April 24, 2024). Why Are Students Camping on University Lawns? A new wave of campus protests has hit institutions from California to Massachusetts, many emboldened by arrests at Columbia University. Available online:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2024/04/24/students-set-encampments-coast-coast . 

[5] FIRE (June 20, 2024). POLL: Americans oppose campus protesters defacing property, occupying buildings. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-americans-oppose-campus-protesters-defacing-property-occupying-buildings . 

[6] 6.  Honeycutt, N. (June 11, 2024). Confidence in colleges and universities hits new lows, per FIRE polls: Young people, women, and Democrats reported the largest drops. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/confidence-colleges-and-universities-hits-new-lows-fire-polls . 

[7] Schools were not penalized for how they handled the encampment protests. As this report demonstrates, the  impact of the encampment protests on the campus speech climate is captured by responses to survey questions  that ask students about their confidence in that their college administration protects speech rights on campus, their comfort expressing controversial political views, and how frequently they self-censor. Deplatformings that occurred during the encampment protests were also still included in the calculation of the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings.

[8] Harvard’s actual score was -21.50, Columbia’s was -0.53. Both scores were rounded up to 0.00.

[9] FIRE’s documentation of speech controversies that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available online: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx .

[10] The mean “Administrative Support” score for the top five schools (M = 6.30, S.D. = 0.19) is significantly higher than the mean “Administrative Support” score for the bottom schools (M = 5.05, S.D. = 0.49),  t (8) = 5.26,  p < .0001.

[11] The average of the top five schools’  “Comfort Expressing Ideas” score (M = 11.76, S.D. = 0.50) is significantly higher than the average “Comfort Expressing Ideas” score for the bottom five schools (M = 10.61, S.D. = 0.61),  t (8) = 5.26,  p = .01. The average of the top five schools’ “Tolerance Difference” score (M = 0.61, S.D. = 0.42) is significantly lower than the average “Tolerance Difference” score for the top bottom schools (M = 1.53, S.D. = 0.45),  t (8) = -4.03,  p < .01.

[12] FIRE (February 13, 2024). 10 Worst Censors: 2024. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/10-worst-censors-2024 . 

[13] Colleges whose speech policies received a “Warning” rating from FIRE were given a rank of Warning (see Methodology, available in the Appendix). We do, however, present their overall scores in this report. These scores were standardized separately from non-Warning schools so that the overall scores of Warning schools were computed only in comparison to one another. As a result, 251 schools are ranked this year.

[14] Prasad, V. (February 22, 2024). What is happening to medical students? Shouting down speakers reaches the University of Chicago. Available online:  https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/what-is-happening-to-medical-students . 

[15] Coyne, J. (November 18, 2023). Violating University of Chicago speech regulations, pro-Palestinian students shout down Jewish students and shut down their speeches; University does nothing to stop the disruption. Available online:  https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/11/18/violating-university-of-chicago-speech-regulations-pro-palestinian-students-shout-down-jewish-students-and-shut-down-their-speeches-university-does-nothing-to-stop-the-disruption/ . 

[16] President Alivisatos’s statement is available online:  https://president.uchicago.edu/from-the-president/messages/231101-enormous-gifts-and-great-responsibilities . 

[17] FIRE (March 21, 2024). Virginia Commonwealth University earns top rating for free speech. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/virginia-commonwealth-university-earns-top-rating-free-speech ; FIRE (June 11, 2024). University of South Carolina earns top rating for free speech. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/university-south-carolina-earns-top-rating-free-speech . 

[18] 18.  Stevens, S., & Schwictenberg, A. (2020). 2020 College Free Speech Rankings: What’s the Climate for Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2020-college-free-speech-rankings ; Stevens, S., & Schwictenberg, A. (2021). 2021 College Free Speech Rankings: What’s the Climate for Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2021-college-free-speech-rankings ;  Stevens, S.T. (2022). 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2022-2023-college-free-speech-rankings ; 

Stevens, S.T. (2023). 2024 College Free Speech Rankings: What Is the State of Free Speech on America’s College Campuses? The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Available online: 

https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings . 

[19] FIRE (February 13, 2024). 10 Worst Censors: 2024.  The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.  Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/10-worst-censors-2024 . 

[20] A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025.

[21] Huddleston, S. & Mendell, C. (November 10, 2023). Columbia suspends SJP and JVP following ‘unauthorized’ Thursday walkout. Available online:  https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2023/11/10/columbia-suspends-sjp-and-jvp-following-unauthorized-thursday-walkout/ . 

[22] Costescu, J. (March 25, 2024). At Columbia, an Israeli-Designated Terror Group Teaches 'Palestinian Resistance 101'—And Lauds Plane Hijackings. Available online:  https://freebeacon.com/campus/at-columbia-an-israeli-designated-terror-group-teaches-palestinian-resistance-101-and-lauds-plane-hijackings/ . 

[23] A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025.

[24] See FIRE’s Campus Deplatforming database, available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database . 

[25] Hernandez, A.O. & Kaleem, J. (April 19, 2024). USC cancels appearance by director Jon Chu, others amid valedictorian controversy. Available online:  https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-19/usc-axes-high-profile-guest-speaker-from-commencement-lineup-amid-backlash-over-cancelled-valedictorian-speech . 

[26] Zanger, J., Dhaliwal, N., & Saeidi, M. (May 6, 2024). Columbia University cancels main 2024 commencement ceremony, will host multiple ceremonies instead. Available online:  https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-university-commencement-2024/ .  

[27] Morey, A. (April 17, 2024). USC canceling valedictorian’s commencement speech looks like calculated censorship. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/usc-canceling-valedictorians-commencement-speech-looks-calculated-censorship . 

[28] Chow, V. (April 19, 2024). USC cancels all commencement speakers amid valedictorian speech controversy. Available online:  https://ktla.com/news/local-news/usc-cancels-all-commencement-speakers-amid-valedictorian-speech-controversy/ ; The University of Southern California’s official statement is available online:  https://commencement.usc.edu/2024/04/19/commencement-update-april-19-2024/ . 

[29] Student responses to this question were not incorporated into a school’s overall score for the College Free Speech Rankings.

[30] Self-censorship was defined as the act of refraining from sharing certain views because you fear social (e.g., exclusion from social events), professional (e.g., losing a job or promotion), legal (e.g., prosecution or fine), or violent (e.g., assault) consequences, whether in-person or remotely (e.g., by phone or online), whether the feared consequences come from state or non-state sources.

[31] Student responses to these three questions were incorporated into a school’s overall score for the College Free Speech Rankings.

[32] ​​Gibson, J. (2006). Enigmas of intolerance: Fifty years after Stouffer’s  Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties .  Perspectives on Politics, 4, 21–34; Stouffer, S. A. (1955).  Communism, conformity, and civil liberties: A cross-section of the nation speaks its mind. Transaction Publishers; Sullivan, J. L.; Piereson, J.; & Marcus, G. E. (1979). An alternative conceptualization of political tolerance: Illusory increases 1950s–1970s.  American Political Science Review, 73, 781–794; Sullivan, J. L.; Piereson, J.; & Marcus, G. E. (1982).  Political Tolerance and American Democracy . University of Chicago Press.

[33] Student responses to two of the eight speakers — those who expressed that “Collateral damage in Gaza is justified for the sake of Israeli security” or that “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — were not incorporated into a school’s overall score for the College Free Speech Rankings. 

[34] Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S. (March 12, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, Part 1: Campus free speech was in trouble in 2018, and the data shows it has gotten much worse. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-1 ; Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S (March 21, 2024). The skeptics were wrong, part 2: When it comes to free speech, the college kids are not alright. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-2 ; 

[35] Lukianoff, G. & Stevens, S. (May 1, 2024. The skeptics were wrong, Part 3: Surveys on student attitudes toward free speech show alarming trends. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/the-skeptics-were-wrong-part-3 . 

[36] Custer, S. & Lederman, D. (May 6, 2024). A Weekend of Arrests and Commencement Disruptions: Officers break up encampments at USC and Virginia; Vermont and Dickinson cancel speakers. Available online:  https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2024/05/06/weekend-arrests-and-commencement-disruptions-over-israel-gaza ; New York Times. (May 12, 2024). At Commencements, Protesters Deliver Messages in Many Ways. Available online:  https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/12/us/college-campus-protests .  

[37] Casey, M. & Shipkowski, B. (May 10, 2024). Police arrest dozens as they break up pro-Palestinian protests at several US universities. Available online:  https://apnews.com/article/mit-arizona-pennsylvania-campus-protests-encampment-police-7d9cd0a1f4ac7eaca41b38de798a2217 ; 

Fan, C., Kramer, M., & Duddridge, N. (May 2, 2024). Columbia, City College protests lead to nearly 300 arrests. NYC mayor blames "movement to radicalize young people." Available online:  https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-university-protests-nypd-arrests/ ; 

Lukianoff, G. (May 7, 2024). Campus Chaos: Navigating free speech, unrest, and the need for reform in higher education. Available online:  https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/campus-chaos-navigating-free-speech ; 

The New York Times. (June 17, 2024). Where Protesters on U.S. Campuses Have Been Arrested or Detained. Available online:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/pro-palestinian-college-protests-encampments.html . 

[38] Eduardo, A. (April 25, 2024). Texas tramples First Amendment rights with police crackdown of pro-Palestinian protests. More than 50 arrested after state police storm protestors at University of Texas at Austin.. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-tramples-first-amendment-rights-police-crackdown-pro-palestinian-protests ; 

Fisher, L. (May 3, 2024). UT’s War on Students: A peaceful protest spiraled when law enforcement showed up. Now the university has doubled down. Available online:  https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2024-05-03/uts-war-on-students/ . 

Lane, L. (April 30 2024). Fact check on statements from IU, ISP: Snipers, external participants, free speech. Available online:  https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/news/education/campus/2024/04/30/answering-questions-about-the-gaza-war-protests-in-ius-dunn-meadow/73503596007/ ; 

Sandweiss, E. (April 29, 2024). State police leader confirms rooftop sniper at IU protest, responds to excessive force accusations. Available online:  https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/state-police-leader-confirms-rooftop-sniper-at-iu-protest-responds-to-excessive-force-accusations ;

Washington, J. (March 19, 2024). ‘Winning war on woke higher education,’ Anti-DEI efforts continue, some minority students struggle. Available online:  https://www.kxan.com/news/winning-war-on-woke-higher-education-anti-dei-efforts-continue-some-minority-students-struggle/ .  

[39] The self-censorship component was introduced this year and is a composite score of responses to the three questions that are presented after self-censorship is defined. In previous years other questions were used to measure self-censorship and they were factored into the “Comfort Expressing Ideas” component.

[40] A full list of all the deplatforming incidents that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: 

The full Campus Deplatforming database is available on FIRE’s website at  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database . 

[41] A full list of all the scholar sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Scholars Under Fire database is available on FIRE’s website at https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/scholars-under-fire . 

[42] All data reported in this section reflect the Students Under Fire database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here:  https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025.

[43] Schools were not penalized for how they handled the encampment protests. As this report demonstrates, the  impact of the encampment protests on the campus speech climate is captured by responses to survey questions that ask students about their confidence in that their college administration protects speech rights on campus, their comfort expressing controversial political views, and how frequently they self-censor. Deplatformings that occurred during the encampment protests were also still included in the calculation of the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings.

[44] See: Using  FIRE’s Spotlight Database. Available online:  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/using-fires-spotlight-database .  

[45] The Spotlight Database is available on FIRE’s website:  https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/ . 

[46] All data reported in this section reflect the Campus Deplatforming database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the deplatforming incidents that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Campus Deplatforming database is available on FIRE’s website at  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database . 

[47] Deplatforming campaigns that targeted multiple forms of expression (e.g., targeting multiple speakers at an event or targeting multiple pieces of artwork for removal) and that impacted the College Free Speech Rankings were counted as a singular incident.

[48] All data reported in this section reflect the Scholars Under Fire database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the scholar sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Scholars Under Fire database is available on FIRE’s website at  https://www.thefire.org/research/scholars-under-fire-database/ .

[49] FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire database records all outcomes that occur as a result of a sanction attempt (e.g., investigation, suspension, or termination). FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings only penalizes schools for the most severe negative outcome (e.g., for a termination but not for placing a professor under investigation and/or suspension).

[50]  All data reported in this section reflect the Students Under Fire database as of June 15, 2024. A full list of all the student sanction attempts that impacted the 2025 College Free Speech Rankings is available here: https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/08/2025-CFSR-Behavioral-Metrics-FINAL.xlsx . The full Students Under Fire database is currently internal to FIRE but will be released in full in early 2025. 

• Share this selection on Twitter
• Share this selection via email