In a nation founded on principles of free expression, it’s staggering that today’s college students — the next generation of leaders and thinkers — are discouraged from speaking their minds. Indiana University is a case in point. Students there face an Orwellian nightmare: wondering if every word they say could be reported to the administration under the guise that their political views, offhand comments, or even jokes might indicate “bias” of one sort or another. This policy, brought into focus in Speech First v. Whitten, represents a fundamental threat to free expression in education and beyond.
The “bias response team” at Indiana University may sound benign (after all, who could be in favor of “bias”?), but this is just a semantic trick. The reality is that students are placed under a constant threat of being reported to university officials if anyone deems their speech offensive, even if it is simply a difference of opinion on controversial topics. A more accurate name would be the “offensiveness police” or the “you better watch what you say team.”
The vagueness of what constitutes “bias” gives administrators substantial latitude to suppress unpopular or politically charged speech. Indeed, cries of “bias” are routinely leveled at mild and middle-of-the-road opinions such as the view that males should generally not be allowed to compete in women’s sports, or that lowering college admissions standards for racial minorities is on-balance harmful to the alleged beneficiaries who are unprepared to compete after arriving on campus. This results in an environment where students self-censor rather than risk possible scrutiny and contributes further to the dangerous and growing ideological left-wing monoculture at American universities.
Decades ago, public universities experimented with “speech codes” that directly forbade students from expressing unpopular views. Courts across the United States swiftly struck those codes down as violations of the First Amendment. Bias response teams represent an attempt to get around those decisions: Universities now say they are not banning biased speech, they are merely setting up a “team” to “respond” by investigating and making recommendations about student discipline. To their credit, three federal circuit courts have seen through the ruse and have determined that bias response teams chill free speech, a critical violation of students’ rights. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, however, disagrees. That court recently issued a decision that gives cover to Indiana University (and other universities) to stamp out unpopular speech under the guise that since the “bias response team” does not have formal authority to expel students or impose other academic discipline, it doesn’t really do much at all and cannot harm anyone’s free speech rights.
Join the Fight
Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.
MSLF’s amicus brief in Speech First v. Whitten shows why that decision is incorrect and takes a stand for students’ right to engage in open dialogue without fear of reprisal. Our mission is simple: protect every American’s freedom of expression. Bias response teams, though branded as anti-bias tools, threaten this right by stifling dissent. Without action, colleges will quietly suppress speech, undermining a core liberty.
We call on the Supreme Court to hear this case and clarify that public universities cannot use direct or indirect means to chill student speech. This ruling would safeguard free expression at Indiana University and across every public institution in the nation.
What’s At Stake?
Free speech is not just a right but is the only mechanism of which we know to reliably weed out bad ideas and advance the pursuit of truth. Universities are where young Americans are supposed to learn to debate, defend, and understand complex ideas. However, in an atmosphere of surveillance and threatened punishment, students are less likely to share perspectives that challenge the status quo or offer unpopular viewpoints. This suppression of dialogue stunts growth, handicaps scientific and rational inquiry, reduces empathy, and divides people along lines of fear and censorship rather than fostering a society built on shared understanding.
At a time when our country is grappling with political, social, and cultural divisions, the ability to speak freely on college campuses is more vital than ever. Universities should be spaces where diverse ideas meet and are tested in the crucible of discourse. Censoring speech in these forums only deepens divisions and weakens the American ideal of free, open dialogue. Speech First v. Whitten has the potential to set a legal precedent that public universities cannot use indirect methods, like bias response teams, to achieve what they could not accomplish through direct censorship.
