Universities are increasingly citing institutional neutrality and related state laws to suppress innocuous student speech in the latest sign of eroding free speech rights on campus.
Previous complaints about censorship on college campuses have typically stemmed from a protest or speaking event, but colleges are now moving to restrict what university-funded student groups can say on fliers or perform on the stage, which marks an extraordinary intrusion into campus life and raises thorny First Amendment questions, especially at public institutions.
Such actions follow broader restrictions on student speech that were put in place after a wave of pro-Palestinian protests in spring 2024. Since then, college administrators and government officials at the state and federal level have imposed sweeping restrictions on campus speech, censored student media and punished students for protected speech. While many institutions adopted institutional neutrality policies in the wake of the 2024 protests—as student demonstrators demanded presidents and boards address the atrocities in Gaza—such policies are now being leveraged to suppress speech in ways experts say were never intended.
“The whole point of institutional neutrality is meant to say that the institution is not the one speaking and that it should be students and faculty having debates,” said Laura Beltz, director of policy reform at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Recent examples include restrictions on a student play at Cape Fear Community College, where administrators demanded the crew remove protest signs relevant to the production, and an incident at the University of Utah where a student was told to change a flier for an Earth Day event after using language about the disproportionate effects of climate change. And Pensacola State College allegedly censored a student magazine that included articles on the LGBTQ+ community. In each case, officials cited institutional neutrality or other state laws to justify their actions.
No to ‘No Kings’
Two hours before opening night for The Bacchae, a Greek tragedy, John Holohan heard that college administrators were demanding changes to the set. A theater student at Cape Fear with two roles in the play, Holohan said that Cape Fear officials wanted protest slogans removed from the set design, which had been incorporated into the modern adaptation of the play.
The slogans were the kind seen at protests across the nation, including one that read, “No Kings,” which has become a rallying cry for demonstrations against the Trump administration.
Cape Fear officials demanded the removal of the “No Kings” slogan on opening night.
“At first, I was shocked, because two hours before doors open is pretty late to be making changes,” Holohan said. “And then I was angered and frustrated that they were covering up the ‘No Kings,’ sign because it’s our show, it’s something we worked on all semester. It’s a message that is relevant to the play and to modern times, so we were trying to tie everything in.”
While officials wanted all protest slogans removed, they settled for painting over “No Kings.” (The play, which ran in mid-April, ultimately went on without further interference after the incident.)
A college official later told Greyson Hartsell, another Cape Fear student who worked on set design, that the college is obligated to maintain political neutrality, including in student plays that are presented under its name. However, the college does not appear to have any policy on the books.
Cape Fear officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed but told local radio station WHQR that its institutional neutrality policies are implied, not codified.
Free speech experts at FIRE argue that Cape Fear administrators are misapplying their implied institutional neutrality policy. Beltz said college officials are mistaking the point of such policies.
“For universities to be taking these institutional neutrality policies and actually applying them to restrict student and faculty speech totally subverts what the entire premise of that policy is and what it was intended for originally,” Beltz said. “I don’t think that we need to throw out institutional neutrality. I think it’s a problem of misapplication and that there needs to be stronger guidance from universities for their staff about how to actually apply this in practice.”
She also suggests such policies are being overextended and that it is “absurd” for college administrators to “think that every single event that is sponsored by a college is institutional speech,” given the range of different events institutions put on, including political debates.
In the absence of written policies, Holohan would at least like to see some accountability. Without accountability or clear guidelines, he worries there are no guardrails for officials.
“I’m afraid that they are going to tighten up and restrict everything and everything has to be exactly in the middle of the line, you can’t have any freedom of expression, which I don’t think would be the right response,” Holohan said. “I don’t know that they’re going to do that, but I could see that being an outcome. And then if there is no accountability, if the story just fizzles out and everyone forgets, then they get to just keep doing the same thing over and over again. They get to keep changing plays on opening night. They get to dictate what students can say.”
Flier Language Rejected
An Earth Day event flier is at the center of a controversy at the University of Utah.
Raquel Juarez, a student who organized an Earth Day event on campus, was told by university officials that fliers and a promotional email she created containing language about the effects of climate change needed to be changed. University officials took issue with the phrases “environmental justice” and “communities disproportionately affected by climate change.”
The event was sponsored by the Associated Students of the University of Utah (the student government), which prompted the request to change the language, Utah spokesperson Rebecca Walsh told Inside Higher Ed. Walsh pointed to guidance from the Utah System of Higher Education, which states, “Student organizations operating as formal administrative units are subject to institutional neutrality.” Students acting in their official ASUU capacity are thus bound to institutional neutrality.
Juarez, who is a member of ASUU, agreed to change the language, and the event went on as scheduled last month. But she believes that altering her original message undermined the reality that climate change poses greater risks to minority and impoverished communities, which she notes is backed up by science.
The original flier on the left was changed after administrative pushback.
To Beltz, the Utah situation is not as cut-and-dried as Cape Fear.
“I have heard about questions of whether student government speech amounts to institutional speech. And I have the classic lawyer answer: It depends,” she said, noting that depending on what authorities student governments are imbued with may determine whether or not their speech is institutional.
Amid questions of the appropriateness of the demand, Utah’s Academic Senate has called on university administrators to apologize to Juarez. (Walsh said that officials have “apologized for a delayed response to the original flier and explained state law and university policies.”)
But Juarez just wants clarity and guidance to prevent future issues.
“I think the university should provide clear, written guidelines ahead of time so students understand what is expected when organizing events,” Juarez said. “Students shouldn’t have to guess where the lines are, worried that it might shift depending on the language they use.”
Other Incidents
Last summer, Purdue University ended its partnership with its independent student newspaper, The Purdue Exponent, citing institutional neutrality. Purdue officials told the newspaper it was inconsistent “with principles of freedom of expression, institutional neutrality and fairness to provide the services and accommodations described in the letter to one media organization but not others.” FIRE subsequently blasted Purdue officials for misapplying institutional neutrality.
Officials at the University of Texas at Austin also blocked its Graduate Student Assembly from considering two resolutions against state laws last fall, citing institutional neutrality. While the GSA intended to take up resolutions against a law banning DEI practices and another that limited the power of faculty senates at public institutions, officials squashed those votes, arguing that the organization was bound to institutional neutrality.
In other cases, colleges have cited anti–diversity, equity and inclusion efforts when stifling student speech. Although such laws do not typically contain institutional neutrality mandates, free speech experts have noted they are being similarly misapplied to suppress speech on campus.
Students at the University of Central Oklahoma accused officials of using a new state law to shut down a Shakespeare-inspired play last fall. Students told local media that officials refused to pay for the rights to the play—which features male actors performing as women, as was common in Shakespeare’s time—and that a new law, SB 796, played a role. The law focused on suppressing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in higher education, but college officials reportedly told students that it played a role in their decision not to support the production.
More recently, controversy flared at Pensacola State College, where officials are accused of refusing to print a student-produced arts and culture magazine last month that contained stories on the LGBTQ+ community. Students told The Pensacola State Journal that officials cited Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, which restricts discussions on race, gender and other topics, in refusing to print the magazine. FIRE has cast the move as brazen censorship, which PSC officials have denied.
