Recently, a federal appeals court overturned the Stop WOKE Act in Florida, affecting colleges and universities. Meanwhile, Ohio introduced a bill granting state-run civics centers significant power over the curriculum and faculty in their institutions. These legal battles highlight threats to academic freedom and institutional independence.
PEN America stated that the year 2025 posed severe challenges to higher education. The Trump administration halted billions of dollars in research funding, urged dismantling programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion, annulled over 8,000 international student visas, threatened tax-exempt status of universities, and weakened the Department of Education. Conservative legislatures passed numerous educational restrictions, limiting discussions on race, gender, and other contentious topics. Although some of these measures were overturned by the courts, the administration and its allies quietly worked to control academia through changes in accreditation, board appointments, compliance investigations, tenure limitations, and by using federal aid and research funding control.
Colleges and universities face difficult decisions in these conflicts. Florida justified the Stop WOKE Act as a regulation over public employees’ speech in universities. Judge Britt Grant dismissed this, condemning it as an attempt to silence unpopular ideas in academia. This decision aligns with five other federal courts opposing campus speech constraints. No federal appeal court has supported direct censorship so far. Courts’ backing of academic freedom prompted the administration and state legislators to enact indirect measures which might withstand judicial scrutiny. Last year, 20 such laws were passed, marking an increase compared to new gag orders. Actions against universities increased, with Harvard facing over a dozen targets. Reports of Yale potentially settling an administrative discrimination case raised concerns from the American Association of University Professors’ local chapter over risks to academic freedom.
The Strengthening Ohio Civics Act signifies another challenge, granting state-sponsored civics centers significant autonomy from university oversight and exclusive control over civic courses. Directors can decide on hiring, salaries, tenure, and curriculum. Similar efforts exist in other conservative states. The administration is reinforcing tactics to ensure compliance with its agenda. The General Services Administration proposed that federally funded institutions must certify adherence to executive orders against racial discrimination. The Office of Management and Budget is revising federal assistance guidelines, giving political appointees control over education grants. A National Science Foundation policy now bars collaborations with certain Chinese entities. Education Department draft regulations require accreditors to oversee institutions’ policies on ideological diversity and free speech.
New regulations pressure universities to prove their graduates earn more than high school diploma holders, risking the existence of many arts and humanities programs. Additionally, a proposal to shift research funds from institutions to individual researchers could disrupt the historical government-university collaboration, essential in establishing the U.S. as a leader in science and technology.
Preserving academic freedom is vital, allowing faculty to explore ideas freely and protecting universities from inappropriate government influence. As Justice Felix Frankfurter noted, essential freedoms in academia include deciding teaching matters, curriculum content, and student admissions. The most significant threats today come from settlement agreement details, board appointments, and regulatory changes. David Wippman and Glenn C. Altschuler contribute insights on these issues, emphasizing the importance of maintaining these freedoms in academia.