Attending the University of Miami for the past three and a half years as a student, I can honestly say that FIRE’s 2026 College Free Speech ranking was more validating than damning.
I thought my anxiety about speaking on certain sociopolitical issues was a personal flaw or journey that I needed to address alone. I assumed my thoughts of self-preservation were normal and pragmatic. I thought, if I want to become successful, self-censorship was simply the way that life ought to be navigated.
However, FIRE’s ranking gave numbers and language to a concept that has a particularly dangerous power to warp communities through silence: the erosion of free speech is an effective tool for alienation.
On a national level, freedom of expression for university faculty is being challenged. On Oct. 1, the White House sent the “Compact for Academic Excellence” to nine academic institutions, detailing a list of demands to be followed to receive preferential treatment in federal funding, with one acutely affecting faculty.
“Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration,” the document said. “This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.”
If signed, universities would effectively trade the voices, opinions and perspectives of their faculty and staff for funding, perpetuating an idea that one’s thoughts can be bought. As of now, no university has signed the compact.
Additionally, there have been numerous instances at universities like Clemson, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and more across the country where faculty members have been fired because of their personal views.
Even at our own university, we have seen our fair share of speech-related controversy. With a public apology from a professor who wore a “Palestine” sash and a resignation from a doctor for a Charlie Kirk-related repost, university employees have faced intense backlash for their actions. While there is still debate on the actions’ incendiary nature, the reality is that faculty must watch what they do and say to avoid repercussions from either campus administration or wider society.
On a national level, people entering the country from abroad — regardless of visa or citizenship status — have faced immense scrutiny, including visa revocations, ICE detainments and/or deportation. In the wake of actions as small as co-writing a law-abiding university op-ed like Rümeysa Öztürk or participating in on-campus protests, universities penalize the use of free speech and create fear amongst students from abroad. At UM, it manifests as fear within our international student community.
A previous Miami Hurricane article quotes a student as acknowledging that they must “become as apolitical as possible in order to ensure I’d be safe.” Additionally, I have had conversations with international students who are scared to speak on any issue for fear of repercussions from either the university or the federal government. This culture of silence robs the university of valuable perspectives that may benefit the campus conscience.
It has also become more recognizable that student protestors face the brunt of federal ire, state regulation and university policy changes, limiting student advocacy for or against certain issues. Both Indiana University and the University of Texas system banned “expressive activity” after 11 p.m. and 10 p.m., respectively, though they were both found likely unconstitutional by federal judges. Rutgers University only allows “expressive activity” in designated areas on campus.
After updates to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, the University of Miami requires approval for demonstrations, limits them to two hours max, bans encampments and forces student organizations to pay for police presence. This demonstrates how the suppression of student activism is not limited to any specific state, university or type of university. It affects students across the country.
When people do not feel free to share their opinions with the world, they will only share with whom they feel safe, which is oftentimes only people they agree with. While this provides comfort, it is the antithesis of what higher education is supposed to be about. It is also the cause of the political polarization we all know and hate.
With the creation of these echo chambers, we will continue to see the growing aversion to listening, empathy, and understanding. Personally, it has felt quite overwhelming to be constantly bombarded with national news and feel helpless to do anything because I, alone, have minimal impact on federal policy. However, UM is essentially our society — government, laws, residents of different backgrounds, issues, etc. — but on a smaller scale, and there is considerable work to be done on the university scale, both from the bottom up and from the top down to allow expression and foster healthy bipartisan and cross-cultural dialogue.
If students, university faculty and staff face challenges in freedom of expression within a university, who does that leave with a voice? Universities around this country, lauded as the “envy of the world” by the White House, would decrescendo from a loud symphony of knowledge and ideas to one, droning note of institutional conformity. If we allow universities to fall silent, the country will follow suit.
Neal Daniel, president of UnlockAI, is a senior majoring in Innovation, Technology, and Design, with minors in Industrial Engineering and Public Administration.