Self-Censorship Leads to Extremism on American College Campuses

A view from the rear of Alma Mater, on the Morningside Heights campus of Columbia University. The building in the background is the Butler Library. Photo taken by Daniel Chester French.

It may seem easy to dismiss claims that America is in a campus dialogue crisis. Alarmist sources have alleged that the American education system spreads a political orthodoxy brainwashing young people with left-wing ideology. Far-right politicians like former President Donald Trump have claimed that students are being indoctrinated into “radical left” ideologies in their classes, and conservative media has charged universities with policing right-wing students’ beliefs. In 2022, the New York Post compiled stories from conservative students claiming they’ve faced severe grade penalties and public shaming over expressing perfectly reasonable opinions in class. But these alarmist sources only provide a handful of anecdotes as evidence for a supposed censorship crisis against the right. A look at the data suggests the opposite problem, in fact: in the relatively few cases where censorship happens, left-wing perspectives are actually censored more. One analysis, focusing specifically on speech-related faculty firings, found just 45 instances of censorship across thousands of colleges in the United States over a three year period. Of these cases, only 13 specifically targeted right-wing speech, while 27 targeted left-wing speech. This data simply doesn’t fit with the narrative that overwhelming liberal viewpoints are allowed to dominate campus discourse. Consequently, some have gone so far as to call the crisis a complete myth.

But while institutionally-imposed censorship may be exaggerated by politicians and pundits, the right wing’s complaint of ideological purity on college campuses is not entirely contrived. Even without the risk of formal penalties, social forces have an impact on students’ ability to express their viewpoints fully. Data collected earlier this year by the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) shows that 42 percent of students feel uncomfortable expressing their opinion on a controversial topic during an in-class discussion. In more casual social areas, like lounges or dining halls, the rate of discomfort actually increases to 48 percent. FIRE’s survey also finds that a quarter of students admit to censoring their own thoughts in discussions with other students on campus multiple times a week. The inclination to self-censor is partisan, too. “Somewhat conservative” students lead the group, with 40 percent reporting that they self-censor weekly or more. “Very liberal” students report the least self-censorship at just 16 percent. 

Such a partisan split in the tendency to self-censor suggests a very real hostility to dissent on college campuses—enforced not through formal censorship by university officials, but through self-censorship due to social forces. While social hostility may not be as overt as the actual censorship that alarmists allege, the self-censorship it causes still reduces the ability to express opposing viewpoints and closes dialogue with dissenters on-campus. This not only fails to provide a chance to challenge their beliefs, but also sends those who dissent down a path of radicalization. It is only through open dialogue that college students will change minds and combat extremism. 

Those who self-censor, by definition, do not widely publicize their views, which makes it difficult to directly measure the effects of social forces on them. Because they are so difficult to characterize, one must turn to their more outspoken peers to provide insight into how conservatives react to left wing social environments on college campuses.

In an article for the New York Times, Adam Hoffman, a Princeton student, argues that the charged left-wing atmosphere on college campuses doesn’t just fail to convince people to become less prejudiced, it pushes them further to the right. “For those on the right,” he says, “the experience is alienating.” He follows the journey of a initially-moderate conservative Princeton student who “embraced a conservative political identity,” “‘lost faith’ in Princeton” and succumbed to extremism after backlash she faced over some of her more conservative views. Eventually, she denied the importance of policies aimed to slow the spread of COVID-19 and publicly supported Donald Trump. Hoffman’s story doesn’t stand alone, either. One college graduate writes that she became a conservative activist only after seeing a conservative friend “harassed by [her] peers.” As she herself became the target of harassment, she also morphed into a Trump supporter. Another former student tells a similar story: his school “wasn’t just liberal, it was anti-conservative.” The “aggressive leftist culture on campus,” didn’t change his mind, he says. Rather, he directly tells readers, he became “a more radical conservative.” 

Conservatives aren’t the only ones radicalized by a hostile atmosphere on college campuses; it can also push left-wingers who dissent on certain issues towards the right. In 2017, professor Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College publicly disagreed with the institution’s decision to have a so-called “Day of Absence” during which white students would be expected to leave campus. In a letter to an administrator, he voiced reasonable concerns that the event had problematic racial implications because it involved “encouraging another group to go away.” In response, students confronted him with protests and accusations of racism. Eventually, the professor quit his job. Previously describing himself as a leftist, Weinstein became a right-wing reactionary and began embracing extremist beliefs. Recently, he tweeted that officials who recommended the COVID-19 vaccine for children should face prosecution.

The radicalization of affiliates is a disastrous outcome for institutions whose mission is, in part, to promote informed, nuanced, and reasonable thought. In an ideal world, the problem would be easily solved by more strongly promoting the ideals of free speech and toleration of opposing beliefs, especially conservative ones. But some conservatives misuse the concept of “free speech” to criticize liberal students for condemning bigoted rhetoric. Take, for example, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who frequently hosts lectures on college campuses. After students protested a Shapiro lecture at the University of Utah, Shapiro claimed their actions were evidence of a left-wing insistence upon “political correctness” in American universities. Instead of recognizing that he was “disagreeing with [them],” he says they were falsely equating his rhetoric with “violence.” Shapiro ignores the bigoted nature of his “disagreements.” At his lectures, Shapiro frequently describes transgenderism as a “mental illness,” undermines the existence of systemic racism, and denies the impact of slavery on the modern-day African American community. 

While the content of Shapiro’s rhetoric is obviously problematic, what really discredits his claim to “free speech” is the power imbalance inherent to the structure of his talks. Due to the position of power he holds in his lectures, Shapiro cannot be meaningfully challenged. Rather than placing himself in a position where his ideas can be challenged by equally-distinguished peers, the only opportunity to respond to his bigotry is during audience cross-examinations. During these cross examinations, he places himself—a Harvard-educated lawyer who has rehearsed each of his arguments and practiced public speaking ahead of time—against likely nervous college students who have shown up informally to reply to him. This lack of scrutiny inherent to Shapiro’s lecture format lends undue credibility to his talking points. Protests are not a challenge to his free speech, but rather the only real way for those who disagree with his bigoted views to challenge them.

Reducing self-censorship does not mean platforming people like Ben Shapiro whose lectures only encourage bigotry. Instead, American college communities must create more forums for dialogue between students that explicitly encourage dissenting opinions rather than socially penalizing them. These forums could include organized debates between political clubs on campus, socratic seminars on controversial topics, or even informal social mixers for students to discuss controversial topics. Forums that level the playing field between different viewpoints not only reduce self censorship by normalizing voicing dissenting views, but also encourage dialogue between those that hold them.

Unlike Shapiro’s lectures, open forums create an equal playing field between ideas such that potentially bigoted ideas can be adequately held up to scrutiny and refuted by peers. This scrutiny provides the kind of critical analysis that bigotry can’t hold up against. For the average person, bigotry comes from a place of ignorance, and open forums allow students to challenge and dispel that ignorance in a way lectures don’t. This is a more effective way to confront bigotry because it productively challenges ignorant beliefs, instead of outcasting those who subscribe to them and entrenching extremism. 

In order to create the kind of campus culture that promotes informed, reasonable perspectives, college communities must remove the hostility to dissent that dominates campuses across the nation. It is only through creating platforms to engage in political dialogue that universities can move past self-censorship and address extremism whilst challenging bigotry. 

Jacob Gold (CC ’27) is a staff writer at CPR from Castle Rock, Colorado. He plans to study political science and has particular interests in civil rights, free speech, and misinformation. Outside of CPR, you can find him substituting walks in Riverside Park for hikes in the Rockies.