FIRE Free Speech Ranking Reveals Progress, Problems on Campus

While a higher ranking is good news, FIRE’s data still paints a concerning picture

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released its 2026 College Free Speech Rankings in September, placing the University of Wisconsin-Madison 101st out of 257 colleges and universities nationwide. Although this marks a 126-spot improvement from the university’s 2024 ranking, the new data reveals that UW-Madison students continue to report discomfort around self-expression and political discourse, raising questions about whether policy commitments to free speech are being met in practice.

As a nonpartisan and non-profit organization, FIRE is dedicated to defending the free expression and individual rights of students and faculty across the nation. Each year, the group releases its College Free Speech Rankings, which evaluate institutions using student survey data, institutional policies, and recent free speech controversies. Schools are assessed and graded across six categories: comfort expressing ideas, self-censorship, disruptive conduct, administrative support, openness, and political tolerance. According to FIRE’s 2026 findings, the national average campus free speech score is 58.63, a failing grade.

The Trump administration’s approach to higher education, such as its efforts to restrict DEI programs, has brought considerable change to many campuses in the past nine months.

At UW-Madison, the university earned a 59 out of 100 overall- just edging out the national average- yet it still ranks among the lowest-scoring institutions for openness and tolerance. Reflecting a national trend, the findings reveal a growing acceptance of censorship on campus: 76% of surveyed students said that shouting down a speaker is acceptable in at least rare cases, while more than one-third, 35%, said the same about using violence to prevent someone from speaking.

Sean Stevens, FIRE’s Chief Research Advisor, said that UW-Madison’s ranking reflects broader national trends in declining political tolerance, regardless of political orientation.

“We ask questions about whether different speakers should be allowed or not allowed on campus,” Stevens told The Madison Federalist. “Half of them said something that would offend liberal students, and the other half said something that would offend conservative students. For the first time ever, not a single speaker got over 50%. Fewer than 50% of students say they would allow all of those speakers on campus.”

Stevens added that the national political climate and campus-specific factors both contribute to students’ fears, and that self-censorship is often exacerbated by social media and campus reporting systems. FIRE’s survey defines self-censorship as refraining from sharing views due to fear of social, professional, legal, or violent consequences, both in person or online. Students report difficulty discussing controversial topics, namely abortion, transgenderism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 2024 presidential election, and racial inequality.

These findings illustrate a growing polarization among students and a shrinking space for open political dialogue on college campuses.

Although UW-Madison has formally adopted Institutional Neutrality guidelines and the Chicago Statement, a model affirming universities’ commitments to free inquiry, the school maintains a “yellow light” spotlight policy rating from FIRE. The designation means that at least one of the university’s policies is written vaguely enough to potentially restrict protected speech, and could therefore be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Political Science Professor Alex Tahk said that while the university’s policy improvements are promising, only time will tell if they produce meaningful change. “Though the university has made moves in the direction towards unafflicted free speech, it remains to be seen how enduring and meaningful those moves are,” Tahk told The Madison Federalist.

FIRE’s report placed UW-Madison in the bottom 25 institutions nationally for students’ comfort expressing controversial opinions, while no category ranked in the top 50. Highlighting diverse viewpoints and fostering a culture of discussion may be the only solution to the problem, according to Tahk.

“Without free speech, we miss out on the value of viewpoint diversity. And, in reverse, free speech is not as meaningful if no one wishes to express positions anyone else disagrees with,” Tahk said. “But how to foster viewpoint diversity on campus in a way that is consistent with principles of free speech and academic freedom is a complicated question.”

In recent years, UW-Madison has faced high-profile free speech controversies. In 2024, conservative commentator Michael Knowles was billed over $4,000 in security fees by the university before public intervention prompted UW to reverse the charges. The following spring, a talk by former U.N. Ambassador Linda-Thomas Greenfield was disrupted by members of the former campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), who accused her of complicity in Israel’s actions in Gaza, prompting police intervention. Both events highlight the tension between students’ rights to protest and the campus commitment to free expression.

University spokesman John Lucas said the University of Wisconsin “values freedom of expression as a central part of its educational mission” and continues to refine campus policy to reflect that commitment. “When expressive activity takes place within the bounds of the law, it’s an important part of the student experience on campus,” Lucas said, pointing to the university’s Expressive Activity Policy, which defines appropriate time, place, and manner guidelines for protests and demonstrations.

Experts also note that the policy alone is insufficient to cultivate a healthy climate of debate. Tahk stressed that the university’s purpose depends on fostering open intellectual exchange. “Universities are dedicated to the pursuit of truth and knowledge,” he said. “Free speech facilitates free thought and the free exchange of ideas, which is essential to that mission. Institutional neutrality—the idea that the university should not take positions as an institution on social and political issues—would help facilitate free speech. If the university takes positions as an institution, it means some speech is institutionally favored over others, which tends to have a chilling effect on disfavored speech.”

Nationally, FIRE reports that students who engage with peers of differing political beliefs tend to develop more empathy and confidence in discussing controversial ideas. Stevens highlighted that programs promoting civic dialogue, such as those at Vanderbilt and Dartmouth, have shown promising correlations with reduced self-censorship and more robust engagement.

While UW-Madison’s higher ranking may suggest progress, FIRE’s data paints a more concerning picture. Students are growing wary of speaking openly, even with formal protections in place. National politics, campus conflicts, and murky policies have combined to make open discussion on campus increasingly tense. Across the country, and increasingly on Wisconsin’s flagship campus, the struggle continues over whether colleges can remain spaces for true, unfiltered discussion.