By Chris West for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

In an era where intellectual discourse faces unprecedented challenges, 23 states have taken decisive action to protect free speech on college campuses. Yet their efforts raise an important question: Why have more states not followed suit?

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has meticulously documented the implementation of campus free-speech legislation across the nation. Among these initiatives, North Carolina’s House Bill 527 stands as a model of comprehensive protection for academic freedom by supporting free-speech for all students and faculty, regardless of their political identity. Passed in 2017, the law also promotes intellectual diversity on campus and sets an expectation for intellectual rigor and debate in our state-supported higher-education system.

The North Carolina legislation not only incorporates the principles of the University of Chicago’s Statement on Free Expression—widely recognized as the gold standard for campus free-speech protections—but also provides crucial due-process protections in student-discipline cases involving speech rights.

The Chicago Statement, first adopted by its originating university in 2015, establishes fundamental principles for fostering environments where students and faculty can express their views without fear of censorship or retaliation. (You can read more about this statement here, here, and here.) North Carolina’s approach arguably goes further by explicitly dismantling restrictive “free-speech zones” and ensuring that academic discourse remains truly free across entire campuses.

Several states are currently considering legislation that could significantly impact campus free expression. Republicans in Connecticut, for example, introduced last month “An Act Concerning Free Speech On Campuses Of Institutions Of Higher Education” (SB00160), which would require public and private institutions in the state “to develop and implement a campus free-speech policy.” In Illinois, Republicans have introduced a bill that would prohibit public universities from punishing students for exercising their free-speech rights. However, what we have often seen over the last several years is the promotion of legislation that seeks on its surface to support free speech on campus but falls short of the standard set by UNC, a national leader in this arena.

For instance, and as FIRE notes, Arizona’s current laws contain troubling language allowing “a university or community college [to] restrict a student’s right to speak” when doing so is “deemed necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest.” So broad an exception risks undermining the very freedoms these laws should protect. Despite this, the state’s public universities did receive a green light from FIRE.

Over the past years, other states have actively pursued legislation that would move in the opposite direction by restricting speech on campus. Most notable was Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act,” which restricted the teaching of certain concepts, namely critical race theory and identity politics, at both public and private institutions. SB 465, meanwhile, went so far as to strip federal financial aid from students found to “promote” federally recognized terrorist organizations. The first of these bills was passed but was later found to be unconstitutional by Florida courts. The second died in subcommittee last year.

Recent legislative proposals in Indiana and Oklahoma sparked significant criticism for potentially restricting academic freedom and limiting open discussion of contemporary social issues. Indiana’s SB 191 would have required universities to avoid “divisive concepts,” a category that is itself not clearly defined. It even banned the “use [of] state funds for fees, dues, subscriptions, or travel [that] endorse[d] or promote[d] a divisive concept,” a prohibition that would limit faculty research and student engagement with controversial subjects.

Oklahoma’s SB 1305, meanwhile, died in committee but sought to rein in classes on topics like “whiteness,” gender identity, and social justice, an arguable violation of academic freedom on campus.

While not as comprehensive as legislation based on the Chicago Statement, recent laws in states such as Colorado and Arkansas at least acknowledge that universities have an interest in producing an intellectually diverse, robust, and rigorous higher-education environment. Such laws could go further but are a great step in the right direction for all students and faculty.

The need for free speech and open dialogue on campus is not a “conservative” or “liberal” issue. Likewise, the push for campus free-speech legislation should transcend traditional political divisions and binaries. This is the case despite the (perhaps) well-intended but (certainly) unhelpful misconceptions of those who have advocated for speech restrictions from the left, masking their demands in the language of inclusivity. Free speech is itself the best way to promote diversity on campus.

Consider these free-speech benefits for all students, regardless of political orientation:

First, robust free-speech protections create environments where students can engage with diverse viewpoints—an essential component of critical-thinking development. When students encounter and analyze challenging ideas, they develop stronger analytical skills and a deeper understanding of their own positions.

Second, these protections ensure that emerging scholarship and innovative ideas can flourish without institutional barriers. As Nadine Strossen, a noted free-speech advocate and former head of the ACLU, explains, universities must provide “ample alternative channels” for expression if the occasional speech restriction is necessary for the maintenance of the educational mission. This balance supports both academic excellence and student growth.

Third, strong free-speech protections prepare students for meaningful participation in our democratic society. University students, as adults capable of engaging with complex and controversial topics, benefit from exposure to varied perspectives and from learning to navigate challenging discussions professionally.

The steady decline in campus “free-speech zones” demonstrates progress, but more comprehensive legislation remains necessary. States considering new legislation should look to North Carolina’s model, which combines robust protections with practical implementation guidelines. Such legislation should:

• Explicitly adopt the Chicago Statement principles;
• Provide clear due-process protections;
• Eliminate restrictive speech “zones”;
• Protect academic freedom while maintaining reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions;
• Include safeguards against administrative overreach.

While legitimate operational concerns exist—such as preventing the disruption of educational activities—these can be addressed without compromising students’ and professors’ fundamental speech rights. Universities can regulate conduct that interferes with regular operations while still protecting the free exchange of ideas.

Ideologically, too, the path forward requires careful balance. Effective legislation must protect both conservative and progressive voices, religious and secular perspectives, and robust viewpoints regardless of polarity or contemporary controversy. Only through such comprehensive protection can universities fulfill their essential role as forums for intellectual growth and discovery.

Finally, in our current climate of increasing polarization, protecting campus free speech is even more crucial. These protections ensure that universities remain places where ideas can be explored, challenged, and refined through open discourse—benefiting students across the political spectrum.

Not all ideas are good ideas or worth sharing, but all people have a right to have their ideas heard, discussed, and debated without the threat of political violence or government censorship. After all, as Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

Chris West is a graduate student at Duke University Divinity School. Previously, he spent 2018-19 as a Martin Center policy fellow.

The preceding article originally appeared on February 10, 2025 at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal‘s website and is made available here for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 106A-117 of the U.S. Copyright Law.