The reporting on the new Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression College Free Speech Rankings focuses on how things haven’t changed. The headline of Johanna Alonso’s excellent piece is “Students Report Less Tolerance for Controversial Speakers.”
To be clear, the issue of tolerance for campus speakers—and the physical safety of speakers and attendees—remains paramount, as last week’s violence made clear. But for me, FIRE’s study misses the single most profound change on college campuses: AI, and the reality that students are increasingly doing their intellectual exploration privately, not publicly. FIRE’s survey doesn’t ask what questions students are asking their AI models in the privacy of their dorm room or quietly on their laptops during lectures. Yet Inside Higher Ed’s recent surveymakes this clear: “Most students are using generative AI for coursework, but many are doing so in ways that can support, not outsource, their learning.” As one student put it, faculty members and leaders “need to understand how accessible and potent it is.”
FIRE’s approach conflating intellectual freedom (the right to speak) with intellectual obligation (the expectation that one should speak) belongs to an older era. The study’s methodology treats public expression of controversial political views as an expected norm rather than a choice complicated by AI and social media. Students who report discomfort expressing their views in classroom discussions, campus common areas or on social media are counted as evidence of a “chilling climate,” regardless of whether these students have any desire to engage in public discourse.