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)



December 10, 2025
Written by John Craig December 10, 2025 On October 27, the Manhattan Institution’s City Journal published a major, breakthrough analysis of the performance of 100 prominent US (and one Canadian) universities and colleges, “Introducing the City Journal College Rankings,” For the first time, this new performance system includes data on measures (68 in all) like freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity tolerance, quality of instruction, investment payoff, and campus politicization that are not considered in the other major higher ed ranking systems. How did Davidson measure up in City Journal’s performance assessment? On a scale of one (bottom) to five (top) stars , Davidson is among the 63 schools that received 2 stars. Schools that, according to City Journal, have “Mostly average to below-average scores in all categories with no particularly noteworthy strengths. Significant, focused policy changes are needed at these schools.” (Full rankings available here College Rankings | Rankings ) To summarize the methodology, the City Journal team selected 100 schools that are highly touted by other ranking systems, widely known to the American public, and/or of high regional importance. The researchers gathered data on 68 variables across 21 categories covering four major aspects of on- and off-campus life. The Educational Experience categories were Faculty Ideological Pluralism, Faculty Teaching Quality, Faculty Research Quality, Faculty Speech Climate, Curricular Rigor, and Heterodox Infrastructure; the Leadership Quality categories were Commitment to Meritocracy, Support for Free Speech, and Resistance to Politicization; the Outcomes categories were Quality of Alumni Network, Value Added to Career, and Value Added to Education; and the Student Experience categories were Student Ideological Pluralism, Student Free Speech, Student Political Tolerance, Student Social Life, Student Classroom Experience, Campus ROTC, Student Community Life, and Jewish Campus Climate. No other higher ed ranking system includes as many variables. (Read more about methodology at College Rankings | Methods ) The data included publicly available information from sources such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the Department of Education’s College Scorecard, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s College Free Speech Rankings. The researchers also developed original measures for the project, such as the ideological balance of student political organizations and the partisan makeup of faculty campaign contributions. Each variable was coded so that higher values mean better performance and was weighted to reflect relative importance. For example, student ideological pluralism (as measured by self-reported student ideology and the left-right balance of student organizations) accounts for 5 percent of a school’s score while City Journal’s estimate of how many years it will take the typical student to recoup their educational investment to attend a given college accounts for 12.5 percent. A school’s overall score is the sum of points across the 21 categories, with the top possible score being 100. While the assessment system is for the most part hard-data-based, it has, like other ranking systems, subjective elements—like the weighing system. So methodological challenges will come and will doubtlessly lead to improvements the next time around. That said, the methodology strikes me as defensible and a marked improvement over that of other popular rating systems. I will conclude with some comments on the findings. Note that the Average score (out of 100) for the 100 institutions is 46 and the median score is 45.73—so overall, this is not a “high performance” group of institutions. No institution receives a 5-Star rating, and only two receive a 4-Star rating (University of Florida and University of Texas at Austin). Only 11 schools receive a 3-Star rating—Having “Mixed results across the four categories, showing strengths in some and weakness in others. These schools typically have several clear paths to improvement.” Because assessment scores are generally low and tightly clustered in the middle, the rankings by score are misleading: Davidson, at 51.16 with a rank of 25, looks to be in the top quartile (between Princeton and Georgetown), but in fact gets just a 2-Star assessment
November 11, 2025
Report from Ivy League school finds rampant grade inflation, but students complain administration is moving goal posts
October 30, 2025
Decades of big spending, new federal funding cuts and a changing view of higher education created a perfect storm; ‘Spending Your Tuition On Its Mistakes’
Show More