The Supreme Court Could Weigh In On Whether Colleges’ Speech Police Are Legal

By Brandon Poulter

Daily Caller

October 1, 2023


The Supreme Court could weigh in on the constitutionality of so-called bias response teams at colleges in the U.S., which free speech organizations say are used to discriminate against political viewpoints and to chill free speech.


Bias response teams are systems created to monitor alleged biased speech on college campuses, which often end up with students reporting other students for politically disfavored speech, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Students are then brought before administrators in what can be a long-drawn-out process that discourages students from speaking their minds and expressing disfavored viewpoints, which free speech advocates argue violates the First Amendment.


The Alumni Free Speech Alliance, a group of over a dozen free speech alumni organizations, alleges that bias response teams are used to target individuals and often cause students to self-censor, resulting in less intellectual freedom on campuses. The groups filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of advocate group Speech First, which is suing Virginia Tech over its bias-response team.


“In history, it’s always repressive regimes that pick a scapegoat and sometimes not even with aforethought. It just happens they rile up the crowds against them. And that’s what these bias systems are used for,” Chuck Davis, president of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, told the DCNF.


The number of bias response teams at public and private American colleges and universities was 232, according to FIRE. That number nearly doubled to 456 by 2022, according to Free Speech Alliance.


“The goal of these teams is censorship,” FIRE Program Officer Zach Greenberg, told the DCNF.


“These bias response teams have been used to report on group chats and even by third parties walking by on campus,” Greenberg continued.


By policing the expression of bias, these bias response teams are violating the First Amendment, Greenberg explained. Speech which might be perceived as discriminatory or as an expression of bias, such as political speech or offensive jokes, is protected by the First Amendment.


For example, Gonzaga University, which has a bias response team, defines a bias incident as “non-criminal conduct, speech, or expression” that is motivated by “prejudice” because of “real or perceived characteristics,” according to their website. This then triggers a review of the incident, which may or may not result in an “educational conversation” or referral to another office.


“Being investigated is the punishment,” Eric Rasmusen, former economics professor at UCLA and member of the MIT Free Speech Alliance, told the DCNF.


At one incident at the University of Northern Colorado, a professor challenged his students to read a controversial book with the intent of discussing difficult topics and discussing why they were difficult to talk about, only to be reported to the bias response team for alleged offensive behavior, according to National Review.


“It’s well within the professor’s right to recommend controversial classroom materials,” Greenberg told the DCNF.


In the case of Virginia Tech, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals said the bias response team was not unconstitutional since it does not directly punish students. Virginia Tech’s bias response team accepts anonymous tips about other students, and once had a website up which said students could report on things from “jokes that are demeaning to a particular group of people” to “hosting a culturally themed party.”


In a separate case regarding Michigan University’s bias response team, Speech First challenged the team’s definitions as being overly broad, according to court documents. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the university’s bias response team was likely to chill speech.


Universities sometimes acknowledge that their bias response system may conflict with the freedom of speech.


“The expression of an idea or point of view some may find offensive or inflammatory is not necessarily a bias-related incident. While this value of openness protects controversial ideas, it does not protect harassment or expressions of bias,” reads Wake Forest University’s bias response system’s website.


“Free speech absolutely protects the expression of bias,” Greenberg told the DCNF.


“In the real world, they’ll encounter hateful speech, and students need to be able to handle that,” Greenberg continued.


The Supreme Court Could Weigh In On Whether Colleges’ Speech Police Are Legal | The Daily Caller

Where Liberty and Learning Endure

June 29, 2026
As America commemorates 250 years of independence, we reflect on the enduring principles of liberty and learning that have defined Davidson College for nearly two centuries.

Bankruptcy and Higher Education

June 21, 2026
By Todd Zywicki The Wall Street Journal June 21, 2026 Auburn University is known for its agricultural and STEM programs, its flight school and athletic programs. But the land-grant university recently became notable for another reason: The board of trustees is taking control of the school back from its faculty. The board began seizing the university’s academic programs—including curriculum, course offerings, degree requirements and academic credentials—at its June 5 meeting. The board also dissolved the faculty senate and replaced it with an advisory council to the president, which includes two faculty members from each of the university’s colleges and additional members appointed by the president. The board’s assertion of authority mirrors incoming mandates by the Alabama Legislature restricting the role of faculty senates in the state’s public university system. Predictably, Auburn’s faculty has responded with howls of outrage, decrying these intrusions on the faculty’s authority over academic operations. How could outsiders appointed through a political process have the expertise to make such delicate decisions? I’ve been a professor at a state university for almost 30 years, and I am sympathetic up to a point. But before becoming a professor I was a bankruptcy lawyer. And bankruptcy law teaches an important lesson for how academia can respond to this moment. Bankruptcy gives businesses an opportunity to admit mistakes, reform and emerge stronger. Successful enterprises don’t need bankruptcy lawyers. But when an enterprise loses its way, it goes into receivership. Most universities aren’t financially bankrupt but have lost their mission and direction. Society has long recognized certain institutions’ authority to manage their own affairs. Two notable examples are licensed professionals—such as doctors and lawyers—and universities. Universities, even state universities, have run their enterprises with minimal external oversight. Faculties enjoyed substantial rights of self-governance because they committed to higher standards than those required by ordinary jobs. Professors would establish and maintain standards of scholarly integrity, freedom of speech and inquiry, and rigorous dedication to merit-based assessment of research in specialized areas. They policed their own house, enforcing norms of truth-seeking, maintaining scholarly integrity and rigor, and ensuring that students emerged with basic knowledge, employable skills and civic competency. But over the past several decades, commitment to those values collapsed. Surveys by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression consistently reveal fear among students and faculty around expressing unfashionable ideas. Universities have seen shout-downs, cancellations and even violence against speakers. Merit and quality yielded to “diversity” and “equity.” Truth-seeking has been displaced by faddish theories and ideologically charged teaching and research. Professors design esoteric departments and teach niche classes to cliques of activist students while the needs of other students and taxpayers for real education go unaddressed. Like companies I represented, universities have lost their way. And many have proved either unable or unwilling to self-correct. When that happens, it is appropriate to put institutions into receivership until they reform and rededicate themselves to their mission. At Auburn incoming students must now take certain required civics and history courses to master basic competency in U.S. history and government. To ensure the classes actually meet that objective, professors will have to make their syllabi publicly available. In the classroom, instructors will be expected to stick to the matter at hand and avoid free-ranging political punditry. Just as other companies can learn from the ones that go bankrupt, other institutions of higher education can learn something from Auburn: Fix what’s broken, or someone else might fix it for you. Mr. Zywicki is a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. He was a Dartmouth College trustee, 2005-09. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/bankruptcy-and-higher-education-4c2b178e

Race Preferences Are Falling Nationwide

June 19, 2026
By the Editorial Board The Wall Street Journal June 19, 2026 The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against racial preferences is turning out to be a landmark with profound consequences as its influence spreads. On Thursday the famously progressive Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a state program that issued scholarships based on race violates the U.S. Constitution. Justice Annette Ziegler wrote for the court that the Constitution requires “that every person ‘must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race,’” and that the state cannot “use race as a factor in affording educational opportunities among its citizens.” That must have been painful for the activist liberal majority on the court. In a concurrence, Wisconsin Chief Justice Jill Karofsky took some shots at Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023) before acknowledging that “I am bound by the precedent set forth in SFFA” and other Supreme Court rulings “when interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment.” The case was brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty against a 1985 Badger State law that reserved need-based scholarships through a grant program for “Black American,” “American Indian,” “Hispanic” and some Southeast Asian undergraduate students enrolled in Wisconsin’s private and technical colleges. Last week the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a scholarship program earmarked for black University of Iowa students studying physical sciences was “impracticable” under SFFA. State governments would be wise to repeal these discriminatory grant programs, or the courts will do it for them.
Show More