Experts say perceiving SU’s ‘D’ free speech grade requires nuanced context
Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.
As conversations surrounding free speech spark at college campuses nationwide, experts say Syracuse University’s “D” grade in The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ranking is more nuanced than it may seem.
Released on Sept. 9, FIRE’s annual College Free Speech Rankings, which surveyed 344 SU students, gave the university a score of 64.8, its highest ever recorded grade. The score places Syracuse at 65th out of 261 schools, moving up 11 spots from the previous year.
The overall score is 7.82% higher than the previous year. The nonprofit, in collaboration with other organizations, surveyed college undergraduates from 261 schools about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.
The overall state of free speech on college campuses is “grim,” the FIRE release reads, with administrators misusing their power to cancel controversial speakers, cave to government or student calls for censorship and limit academic freedom.
FIRE calculates each school’s overall score through 12 different components, six measuring student perceptions, three assessing campus speech policies and three evaluating how schools respond to speech controversies.
Roy Gutterman, Newhouse School of Public Communications professor and director of its Tully Center for Free Speech, said the findings show SU is in the same boat as other colleges and universities across the country. He added that free speech is not always “absolute” everywhere all the time.
“It is virtually impossible to please everyone when it comes to free speech policies. But the real test is how policies on the books are applied and whether anyone ‘gets in trouble’ for their pure speech,” Gutterman said in a statement to The Daily Orange. “Universities have a difficult task to balance multiple interests and rights.”
Aileen Favilla, senior program manager for higher education and free expression at PEN America, explained that the FIRE rankings are one tool to measure free speech and conflicts but don’t show the full picture of campus life.
FIRE’s methodology may not consider other, more positive, factors on campuses, Favilla said, including a “robust” student government, articles in student newspapers, extracurriculars or classroom discussions.
Despite information from a national organization like FIRE, Favilla said students have the best sense of expression from just being on campus and getting involved with their university.
“It’s not going to tell the whole story. The people who are going to be able to tell you what the climate for free expression on your campus is like best are going to be the people who are on campus with you,” Favilla said. “You’re the experts in your own community.”
Tomasz Saarloos, vice president of SU’s chapter of College Democrats, said he sees students coming to clubs and organizations to feel a sense of community and speak their minds. Saarloos said organizations like SU’s College Democrats are a place where students don’t feel societal pressure or judgment and are welcomed back regardless of viewpoints.
Saarloos also referenced the impact federal legislation and political influences have on the environment of free speech on campus.
“We all are witness to this incredibly difficult political time in all our lives,” Saarloos said. “This is not normal.”
Nearly half of Americans say freedom of speech is under major threat, according to a survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
FIRE’s release specifically mentions the killing of Charlie Kirk as creating a “jarring” year for free expression on campus and having a “profound impact” on students nationwide.
Its survey, conducted in October 2025, found around half of undergraduates felt less comfortable going to controversial public events on campus after Kirk’s killing. Additionally, around half also said they were less comfortable expressing their views on controversial topics on campus, in class and on social media.
“Charlie Kirk’s assassination also prompted increased pressure from public officials to sanction faculty speech, primarily in response to social media comments about his death,” its press release reads.
SU received national attention after a New York Post article named two SU professors who had written comments about Kirk after his death, raising questions about their status at the university.
SU’s chapter of College Republicans did not respond to The D.O.’s request for comment.
Gutterman said he’s unsure if Kirk’s killing affected the contemporary debate on free speech more so than Kirk did through his nonprofit Turning Point USA. Gutterman said he still believes Kirk’s legacy in tracking free speech on campus lives on.
Saarloos agreed Kirk’s death hasn’t created a notable difference at SU but thinks it introduced the notion that political speech is threatened across the political spectrum. He said although SU’s College Democrats aren’t aligned with Kirk’s politics, the group believes political violence isn’t the answer.
“I think it really has shed a light to people that we need to tone down in terms of rhetoric, but we can also be true to our principles while doing that,” Saarloos said.
Favilla said violence cannot be the answer to any kind of expressive activity because it has a “chilling” effect, which will “absolutely” impact free expression.
However, rather than solely looking at rankings or assassinations, Favilla highlighted the importance of staying aware of state and federal rulings.
She specifically mentioned a bill passed by the Texas Senate in May 2025 which sought to restrict expressive activities. Several months after Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law, a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law under First Amendment concerns.
Also referencing legislation, Saarloos spoke about The Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act of 2026, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Sept. 3. The act blocks certain federal funding and student aid to colleges and universities participating in commercial boycotts of Israel.
Saarloos explained that conversations at the federal level limiting many college students’ free speech are upsetting and need to be discussed.
“I think it’s really important to have those dialogs instead of our federal legislators behind closed doors trying to repress our speech and take us further back,” Saarloos said.
Despite the concerns referenced in FIRE’s findings, other research paints a different picture. Lumina Foundation and Gallup polls found 55% of college students believe their school’s leadership usually makes decisions in the best interest of students.
SU students have the right to express themselves freely on any subject, as long as they don’t violate the Student Conduct Code. Possible violations include the prohibition of harassment of others or disruption of university operations, including the right of unimpeded egress on campus, the university Community Standards website reads.
The Syracuse Statement on Free Expression and Free Inquiry emphasizes the university’s dedication to free expression and inquiry. Expression on campus will only be restricted if it incites violence, harasses someone based upon a protected characteristic or violates the law, according to the statement.
Private institutions generally are not bound by the First Amendment and create their own guidelines and rules for students’ free speech rights, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union.
As a private university, Gutterman said SU adopted a “strong defense” of free speech values on paper but says in practice it may be harder to view as judicial affairs are confidential.
“Aside from anecdotal experiences, (free speech) is hard to gauge. But it is not difficult to feel a lot of the tension surrounding public affairs and speech about public issues,” Gutterman said. “There are certainly concerns there.”
Favilla emphasized the importance of taking into consideration the uniqueness of location, mission, values and community to meaningfully improve the environment for free speech. She said a campus is going to be informed by the people on it more than it’s going to be informed by an organization that’s taking a single viewpoint.
“You know your campus better than anybody else for any ranking, and the power to make change for free speech is in the hands of the people who make up a campus,” Favilla said.
