[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-588254-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-588254-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","yelling-fire-on-campus-free-speech-leaders-and-laggards","Yelling FIRE on Campus - Free Speech Leaders and Laggards","","“Yelling FIRE on Campus: Free Speech Leaders and Laggards” examines how free speech and free inquiry have shifted from uncommon, contested ideals to central values in Western higher education and then faced renewed pressure. The discussion traces intellectual defenses from Mill to contemporary journalists, contrasts institutional missions and tenure developments, and highlights internal academic censorship driven by critical-theory influence, safety bureaucracies, and child-raising cultures that emphasize harm avoidance. Evidence and references from survey research frame how often students self-censor.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/yelling-fire-on-campus-free-speech-leaders-and-laggards/588254/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/yelling-fire-on-campus-free-speech-leaders-and-laggards/588254.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aditya","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-08","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why does the article argue that free speech was historically abnormal?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It attributes this to human evolutionary dynamics where group loyalty, solidarity, and deference to authority were advantageous during external conflicts.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did higher education in the U.S. change the role of free speech?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"As campus missions shifted toward producing and disseminating knowledge, free inquiry and free speech became more central, alongside the development of tenure.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What does the article identify as contemporary threats to free speech?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It points to internal pressures within academia, including critical-theory influence, “safety” bureaucracies, and cultural norms that discourage offensive speech, leading to punishment of dissenters and self-censorship among students.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},588254,1792192000,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962085564549,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","Acad. Quest . (2023) 36.1 DOI 10.51845.36.1.5  \nYelling FIRE on Campus: Free Speech Leaders and Laggards  \nRobert Maranto  \nMartha Bradley-Dorsey  \nIntroduction  \nIn most societies, through most of human history, free speech was abnormal, even abhorrent. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues, this likely reflects our evolution as a species, in which small bands competed with others for resources, making group loyalty, solidarity, and deference to authority evolutionarily advantageous in external conflicts.1  \nModernity has done much to change this, particularly in the West. From John Stuart Mill in 1859 to his contemporary defender, Danish journalist Jacob Mchangama, most intellectuals have backed an open, noncoercive marketplace of ideas as the best means of divining truth, and generally lauded technological innovations from the printing press to the Internet which enabled the exchange of ideas. Indeed, as Mchangama details, in many respects the arguments for and against free speech have changed little since the Greeks, involving tradeoffs between the relative values of feeling free to seek knowledge or just express one’s thoughts, as opposed to protecting against giving offense or eroding public morals.  \nAs the recent assassination attempt against Salmon Rushdie reminds us, the Islamic Republic of Iran, like the Medieval Vatican, finds free speech unacceptable since the regime claims to know the  \n1 The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Knopf, 2012) .  \nRobert Maranto served in the U.S. government during President Bill Clinton’s administration and on his local school board and is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas; [rmaranto@uark.edu](rmaranto@uark.edu).  \nMartha Bradley-Dorsey is a private researcher affiliated with the University of Arkansas with both state legislative research and academic experience; [mlbradle@uark.edu. Maranto and](mlbradle@uark.edu. Maranto and) Bradley-Dorsey last appeared together in AQ with their article “Can Academia and the Media Handle the Truth?” in the fall 2020 issue.  \ntruth and thus has no reason to tolerate error, which could only cause individual and social harm.2 In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Marxist regimes took exactly the same approach regarding the infallibility of the Communist party, leading apostates to publish works like the essays in Richard Crossman’s brilliant, and now largely forgotten The God That Failed.3  \nIn the U. S. , as Keith Whittington details, before 1900 U. S. higher education existed largely to train ministers and connect elites—neither free inquiry nor free speech were essential values. Professors had no tenure. Controversial speakers like temperance crusader Carrie Nation faced student rioters at UC/Berkeley not unlike those attacking Milo Yiannopolous at the same school a century later.4 Free speech and free inquiry only became important higher education values in the twentieth century as campus missions shifted from supporting orthodoxy to producing and disseminating knowledge, missions requiring conjecture, freely proposing and testing sometimes controversial ideas. The new missions fostered the development of tenure, so professors could even write tomes that might offend financial benefactors. But, as free inquiry defenders such as Whittington and the recently deceased James R. Flynn have lamented, the new missions sometimes faced (usually external) attacks, especially during the McCarthy era.5  \nIn the twenty-first century, free speech and its twin, free inquiry have increasingly come under fire, and to a far greater degree than in the 1950s, censors come from within academia. Various forms of critical theory have gained substantial influence in U. S. higher education, where adherents use their power to brand free speech and free inquiry as reinforcing the power of the privileged and endangering women and people of color. This i","cbCailZRu2RATl7t","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailZRu2RATl7t","pdf",249140,11,"English","# Introduction\n## Historical background of free speech\n## Free speech and higher education missions\n## Contemporary threats and internal academic censorship\n## Evidence and survey-based findings","[{\"question\":\"Why does the article argue that free speech was historically abnormal?\",\"answer\":\"It attributes this to human evolutionary dynamics where group loyalty, solidarity, and deference to authority were advantageous during external conflicts.\"},{\"question\":\"How did higher education in the U.S. change the role of free speech?\",\"answer\":\"As campus missions shifted toward producing and disseminating knowledge, free inquiry and free speech became more central, alongside the development of tenure.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the article identify as contemporary threats to free speech?\",\"answer\":\"It points to internal pressures within academia, including critical-theory influence, “safety” bureaucracies, and cultural norms that discourage offensive speech, leading to punishment of dissenters and self-censorship among students.\"}]","Yelling FIRE on Campus - Free Speech Leaders and Laggards | PDF",1792064849,28]