Since 2021, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has published yearly college free speech rankings, surveying 68,510 college students in partnership with survey administrator College Pulse at 257 schools to gain insight into the state of freedom of expression on America’s campuses.
In their most recent report, released Sept. 9, Notre Dame was among 166 schools that received an “F” grade for campus speech climate. Claremont McKenna College in California took the top spot, with a “B-.” Only 11 schools received a grade of a “C” or better for their speech climate, and FIRE identified an overall rise in support of censorship as a cause for concern regarding freedom of expression on campuses.
While Notre Dame has consistently received an “F” mark since FIRE began the rankings in 2021, Notre Dame fell 71 places from last year’s rankings this time around to rank 238th out of 257 colleges and universities. The rankings are determined by a student survey at each of the 257 campuses.
FIRE labeled Notre Dame’s scores for self-censorship and political tolerance as declining “drastically,” contributing to the drop in ranking.
66% of the 311 Notre Dame students surveyed shared that they had self-censored during conversations with other students on campus at least once or twice a month. 63% reported self-censoring during discussions with professors at least once or twice a month. 68% reported self-censoring during classroom discussions at least once or twice a month. In comparison, 28% of nationwide students said they “often self-censor during classroom discussions.”
Senior and president of Student Voices for Palestine (SVP) James Thompson offered his perspective on self-censorship, saying that “there is an overall baseline of what is acceptable to talk about at Notre Dame and in what way, but there are a lot of really great people who see the potential for the University to pursue serious dialogue on campus.”
Despite some self-censorship, College Republicans president Shri Thakur believes the environment at Notre Dame is more conducive to free speech than that of other universities.
“I know many of my peers have felt the need to self-censor to some extent. But I think overall the environment at Notre Dame for free speech is better within the bounds of a Catholic university and the Catholic character,” he said.
Thakur made note that while other colleges and universities may be likely to censor conservative voices, he sees Notre Dame’s low grade as an effect of its Catholic institutional values, which may discourage certain topics like abortion from being discussed or endorsed by faculty or students.
Senior Alex Young, co-president of College Democrats, agreed that Notre Dame’s Catholic identity allows the University to set parameters surrounding student speech.
The report attributed part of this drop in ranking to the cancellation of University of Chicago professor Eman Abdelhadi’s planned keynote address at the Kroc Institute’s student peace conference last April. FIRE labeled this incident as the University’s only “speech controversy,” and it is the first that FIRE has flagged at Notre Dame since it began its rankings in 2021.
Abdelhadi was set to speak about pro-Palestine organizing on college campuses at the conference when the conference’s student organizers received an email six days before the event informing them that University administrators decided to rescind her invitation, citing their inability to provide increased security at the event, which was required at events discussing Israel and Palestine, as reason for the cancellation with the combination of a short notice of the topic of her address, the Blue-Gold football scrimmage and Holy Half Marathon happening on campus that same day.
“To be able to have constructive conversations is a pillar of academic expression, so the fact that they would say no, there needs to be security and we can’t provide security so we’re just not going to have it, was indicative of a deeper issue of academic censorship existing in this current trend in this country,” student organizer Eva Garces-Foley told The Observer in April.
Abdelhadi spoke out against her disinvitation in an op-ed, and students and faculty at Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute signed onto a letter condemning her disinvitation and alleging that the University was violating academic freedom.
Notre Dame placed in the top 50 for disruptive conduct. 69% of students agreed that “shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases,” compared to 72% of overall students agreeing.
24% of Notre Dame students surveyed agreed that “using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases,” lower than the overall 34% of student respondents who agreed with that statement.
In response to the FIRE ranking, University spokesperson Erin Blasko wrote in a statement to The Observer, “The University of Notre Dame has an unwavering commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression. These principles are and must be foundational to our life as a community of scholars. Speech that incites violence, involves threats, or constitutes harassment will not be tolerated.”
Blasko continued, “In addition, compliance with Notre Dame’s policy regarding the time, manner, and place for free expression is essential so that the work of the University-the teaching, learning, research, and intellectual exchange core to our mission-can continue even as we grapple with important issues. At Notre Dame, we seek to be a model of vigorous but respectful dialogue for a society greatly in need.”
Free speech has been particularly at the forefront of campus and nationwide discourse since the shooting of Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist, while he spoke on Utah Valley University’s campus on Sept. 10.
In an email to the Notre Dame community on Sept. 12, University President Fr. Robert Dowd encouraged, in light of recent violence in educational settings and a rise in political violence, community members to recommit themselves to being part of the solution.
“Let us recommit to listening to those with different viewpoints and to engaging in respectful dialogue. We are diminished as individuals and as a community if we engage only with the like-minded, and most especially, if we fail to treat with respect those with whom we disagree,” Dowd wrote.
Notre Dame’s du Lac student life policies detail the University’s policy on demonstration. Students are expected to adhere to location, time and manner restrictions, which the University writes are designed to “(a) protect the health and safety of participants and the campus community, (b) avoid disruption of the regular and essential operations of the University, and (c) maintain an atmosphere conducive to scholarly and educational pursuits. In addition, all demonstrations must be registered in advance and in writing with the Vice President for University Operations, Events, and Safety or designee,” the policy reads.
Young expressed concern about what he called, “Notre Dame’s stricter rules about protesting,” which forbid student groups from encouraging activities that contradict the University’s values, and regarding student groups not being able to discuss abortion and reproductive healthcare.
Notre Dame received praise from former President Richard Nixon for a policy enacted by former University President Fr. Theodore M. Hesburghpertaining to protests during the Vietnam War, which mandated that student protestors be given 15 minutes to protest before having to cease and desist.
Thompson critiqued the 15-minute rule, which he believes restricts student expression.
“I do think the 15-minute rule, especially, is a Vietnam War Era tactic from the University to shut down any sort of student expression, and so that is definitely a structural issue. There is also no clear definition of what a demonstration is on campus. So it leads certain offices to be able to decide what is or is not a demonstration and thus subject us to different approval processes,” Thompson said.
Connor Marrott, who graduated last year and was one of 17 demonstrators apprehended on May 2, 2024 during a pro-Palestine protest, echoed this criticism.
“What I do not think a lot of people realize is that the 15-minute rule has been applied to both conservatives and republican radical organizers on campus, and has resulted in the arrest of students across the ideological spectrum,” he said.
Marrott believes that the University arrested students not because of their behavior but because of the content of their protest.
“The issue with that is, we took from that same model as the anti-drag protests, because the University let that happen, letting students pray outside of an academic building, outside of an academic event. The University did not arrest them, but when we do that against genocide, which is an issue that our political leaders have vilified, we are met with more limitations and repressions,” he said.
Although Thompson was critical of the University’s handling of the pro-Palestine protest, Thompson still believes the University’s “F” ranking to be harsh.
“I think an ‘F’ is a little extreme, because there is not an insane amount of oppression, despite arresting our students last year and pursuing them in court for speaking their mind about Palestine. However, I do think that the University’s primary function is to facilitate dialogue, and I believe that there are wonderful students, organizers, academics and activists who make this a better place for dialogue,” Thompson said.
Editor’s note: Marrott is a former opinion columnist for The Observer.