College alumni are stepping up to defend free speech


By Bryan Paul

Washington Examiner

September 29, 2023


When thinking of college alumni, one generally imagines boosters donning their alma mater’s signature colors and cheering proudly for their team at homecoming games, or a multimillionaire being courted at campus events and donating substantial sums to fund an institution’s new building, sports complex, or scholarship program.


In fact, higher education institutions have tended to view alumni solely as cheerleaders and walking checkbooks who can be entertained and solicited for financial support while their ideas and concerns can be managed or ignored. By treating alumni as branded cash cows, colleges and universities are snubbing the most enduring stakeholder group in the higher education ecosystem.


Alumni consistently report that their college education was not just crucial to their professional lives but to their personal development. And alumni are no small constituency. As of 2021, about 38% of people ages 25 and older hold a bachelor’s degree. Alumni, who retain their academic affiliation for a lifetime upon graduation, are also uniquely positioned to hold their alma maters accountable to their core missions. From skyrocketing costs to burgeoning free speech violations, it is clear the higher education system is in serious need of course correction.


That’s why a growing number of alumni are no longer content to write blank checks and cheer from the sidelines. They have become alarmed by the erosion of civil discourse and the abysmal state of free expression on campus and are organizing to revive those essential values in a number of important ways.


Alumni are working to bring accountability back to college campuses in several ways. First, alumni have realized that they can show their gratitude to and exert positive influence on their alma maters through targeted intentional giving. While it might seem logical simply to withhold donations from a university when it falls short of its core mission, the potential of a targeted major gift often opens the door to a conversation about the direction of the university and forces the institution to answer tough questions and even change behavior to be worthy of the gift. Donors can, and should, restrict gifts to specific purposes. That does not mean infringing on the very academic freedom they seek to protect: It means setting up the guardrails that protect values the institution ought to cherish.


The savvy donor is informed about the reality on campus, has a clear vision for what the gift should accomplish, and has the patience to take time to fund projects that align with the needs of the institution while reinforcing the vision of a vibrant and intellectually diverse education. Even nonmajor gifts to programs such as the Civil Discourse Project at Duke University indicate to the administration that alumni actively care about free speech. Big money can start a conversation, but donors at any level can make a significant difference by giving wisely.


Secondly, engaged alumni, such as those affiliated with the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, are collaborating to promote and defend free expression policies, host debates and events on campus, mentor students, and invite speakers who represent a variety of viewpoints and who otherwise might be ignored or deplatformed. Having benefited from education grounded in the free exchange of ideas, alumni are living, breathing testaments to the importance of free and open inquiry in higher education and democratic society. Their positive experiences on campus now motivate them to ensure that future generations of students receive a solid grounding in the same values and develop the intellectual fortitude to grapple with ideas that challenge even their most closely held beliefs.


“I think the future of the country depends on the educational system,” said Stuart Taylor, Jr., co-founder of AFSA and president of Princetonians for Free Speech, in a recent video highlighting the national alumni movement. “You would hope that [students] would have a sense of our national heritage and they would have learned some history, but it’s college where they should really learn how free speech works in practice, how it helps you figure out what you think, how it helps you communicate with your fellow students and your professors and the people you go to work for after college.”


Alumni such as Taylor (Princeton ’70, Harvard Law ’77) exemplify the type of citizenship that is at the heart of a liberal democracy.

Now fully awakened to the threats facing free expression on campuses, alumni have mobilized to help their alma maters be better and ready for the future. The esteem in which alumni hold higher education is why administrators would be wise not to take alumni volunteerism for granted and to listen to their concerns about academic freedom.


Bryan Paul is the director of alumni advocacy for the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.


College alumni are stepping up to defend free speech (msn.com)



15 May, 2024
Annie Hirshman '24 May 15, 2024 Last year, I took a Political Science course with a certain professor. This was not uncommon for me, as I am a Political Science major. However, for students of different majors, this particular course was required in order to obtain a liberal arts degree from Davidson College. Therefore, this class serves as a lot of students' sole exposure to the political science department. I was in the classroom with a variety of individuals, ranging from the Phi Delt jocks to the studio art majors. This classroom had everything and everyone. Since this was the first time a lot of them had taken a political science course, the dialogue and discourse was somewhat quieter. Therefore, I felt encouraged to speak up in class. I participated often, sharing my opinion on daily issues and historical events that had shaped American politics. I hoped that my voice would encourage others to participate. Sharing my opinion took a turn for the worse on a certain Wednesday morning. As the semester progressed, I noticed that the teacher was only sharing liberal skewed media sources. When they would discuss conservative matters, it had a negative connotation. They often referred to Republican politicians as a whole using derogatory terms, almost asserting that one bad apple was synonymous with the bunch. I discussed what occurred within the classroom numerous times outside, especially with my classmates that were rather conservative. They spoke of how they felt alienated in class, frightened at the outcome if they were to share their opinion. As a natural-born extrovert and rather excited by the idea of questioning the professor, I spoke up. I asked them why they chose to share only liberal-based news sources and strayed from conservative outlets in their journalistic sources. Their answer was short and sweet: because they were the only accurate sources to garner information from. I was shocked and severely taken aback by their statement. Later that day, the professor followed up with an email ‘defending’ their position. Without their intent, they confirmed that they do not “explicitly seek to include conservative outlets”. They spoke of how there was an ongoing movement to tar outlets that were not relatively conservative. They continued that accurate news sources were under attack for liberal alignment when in reality (their opinion), they were honest and true. The professor asserted that Republican politicians were guilty of executive aggrandizement for these efforts. In addition, they asserted that sources such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have been shown to have a very limited liberal bias, if any. As someone who seeks to challenge my own and other’s beliefs, I did some research to see if these statements were accurate or not. I checked multiple sources to see which sources were actually ideologically skewed. The Allsides Media Bias Chart, which collects its information based upon multi-partisan scientific analysis, including expert panels and surveys of thousands of everyday Americans, provided convincing material. It asserted that the New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post all skew left to the same extent that The Wall Street Journal skewed right. In addition, I analyzed the Ad Fontes Chart. In order to analyze their data and rate their sources, their methodology consists of multi-analyst ratings of news sources along seven categories of bias and eight of reliability. Each source is rated by an equal number of politically left-leaning, right-leaning, and centrist analysts. All analysts must hold a bachelor’s degree, while most hold a graduate degree and about one-third have obtained a doctoral degree. It argues that the Wall Street Journal is on the “skews right” section while the Washington Post, New York Times, and CNN are on the “skews left” section. The fact that Davidson supports a professor that only teaches one side is sad but not shocking. This is an ongoing issue at this college. I know for a fact that I am not the sole student who feels this way. Teachers are supposed to teach us how to think, not what to think. Through supporting professors that promote a one-sided discourse, that statement is contradicted daily. Considering that the college routinely refers to the “Davidson Experience” in a positive way, I can’t believe that this is what they have in mind. At the end of the day, solely teaching one side is indoctrination. Davidson, coming from a student who admires and cherishes you, please do better so future generations of students feel both free and encouraged to speak their mind, even if it is different than the majority. Annie Hirshman is a 2024 Graduate of Davidson College with a degree in Political Science.
07 May, 2024
Students demanded that we side against Israel, violating the core principle of institutional neutrality.
03 May, 2024
Higher education isn’t daycare. Here are the rules we follow on free speech and public protests.
Show More
Share by: