한국관련자료
Red Light, Green Light: How Governing Boards Differ at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Lowest- and Highest-Ranked Campuses for Free Speech
A free speech recession has taken hold in American higher education, with students and faculty self-censoring at historic rates and professors facing sanctions for controversial views more often than during the height of McCarthyism in the 1950s. Using 2025 free speech rankings of 251 campuses from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this report examines whether governing boards influence speech climates by comparing institutions with the strongest and weakest free speech protections.
Our regression analysis of 1,653 board members reveals sharp differences. Public institutions and those outside the Northeast, especially in the South, tend to better support free speech. The 30 best-ranked campuses tend to have boards half the size of the 30 worst-ranked campuses (15 vs. 31 members on average). Schools with boards that are heavy with alumni, advanced-degree-holders, and private-sector leaders correlate with worse free speech environments, while those with boards that have more government or faculty experience perform better.
These patterns do not prove causation but suggest that oversized, donor-driven boards could prioritize compliance over inquiry. Shrinking boards, diversifying beyond alumni and business executives, and mandating free speech vetting in leadership hires could reverse the chill on free speech and equip trustees to defend open discourse against administrative overreach.
Our regression analysis of 1,653 board members reveals sharp differences. Public institutions and those outside the Northeast, especially in the South, tend to better support free speech. The 30 best-ranked campuses tend to have boards half the size of the 30 worst-ranked campuses (15 vs. 31 members on average). Schools with boards that are heavy with alumni, advanced-degree-holders, and private-sector leaders correlate with worse free speech environments, while those with boards that have more government or faculty experience perform better.
These patterns do not prove causation but suggest that oversized, donor-driven boards could prioritize compliance over inquiry. Shrinking boards, diversifying beyond alumni and business executives, and mandating free speech vetting in leadership hires could reverse the chill on free speech and equip trustees to defend open discourse against administrative overreach.
많이 본 자료
![[2025.07] 대출규제](/userdata/main/incContent/sideLink/23/aaaqQGcnBTcOc8zW9uLNz20251015165742zqfnw.png)
![[사람이 되고 싶어요2] 환율의 변화](/userdata/main/incContent/sideLink/22/aaaqQGcnBTcOc8zW9uLNz20251015165408vtzoa.jpg)
