Three Pittsburgh universities earn F grades in free speech rankings

Carnegie Mellon University, Duquesne University and the University of Pittsburgh were all given F grades in the latest College Free Speech Rankings Report by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Of the 261 colleges and universities included in the report, 120 received an F grade, another 104 received some form of a D, 34 received some form of a C and two received a B-.

Duquesne’s and Pitt’s grades were consistent with their grades in last year’s report; CMU, however, dropped from a D- to an F.

Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

CMU was ranked 187 in the report, Duquesne 181 and Pitt 205.

The foundation’s rankings, it wrote in the report, are determined using 12 components: six are based on student perception; three assess campus speech policies; and three evaluate how schools respond to speech controversies.

The survey included 232 students from CMU, 294 from Duquesne and 317 from Pitt.

The six components on which students gave their perceptions were: comfort expressing ideas; self-censorship in conversation with other students, professors and administrators; students’ acceptance of disruptive behavior, including shouting down speakers, blocking access to events and using violence to stop campus speech; administrative support protecting free speech; openness, measuring how many of 22 social and political topics students identified as difficult to discuss; and political tolerance, which measured students’ willingness to allow controversial speakers on campus.

Troubling data can be found in the responses of students at all three local universities.

Nearly three out of four CMU students surveyed (72%) said that shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking is acceptable, at least in rare cases; 34% said that using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable, at least in rare cases.

At Duquesne, slightly more than half of students surveyed (53%) said that it was acceptable to shout down a speaker, while slightly more than a quarter (27%) said violence was acceptable to stop someone from speaking on campus.

Pitt had the highest number of students surveyed who accept the shouting down of speakers, 77%. Thirty-four percent of students surveyed that said violence was sometimes acceptable to stop someone from speaking on campus.

FIRE reported no free speech controversies at either CMU or Duquesne and noted only one at Pitt: the university’s investigation and suspension of Students for Justice in Palestine last year.

Jared Stonesifer, head of external communications and media relations at Pitt, said the university is “deeply committed” to free speech and free expression.

“Encouraging hard conversations and constructive dialogue is foundational to our mission, and the free exchange of ideas is a central pillar of our strategic plan, the Plan for Pitt, including participation in the Institute for Citizens & Scholars’ Campuswide Immersion Pilot that provides the architecture for our robust and wide-ranging free speech efforts,” he said in an email to the Chronicle.

Stonesifer acknowledged that there are opportunities for the university to improve and said it is determined to “get it right.”

A spokesperson for CMU said the school is committed to upholding free expression, academic freedom and civil discourse, adding that CMU also endeavors to ensure the safety and well-being of its campus community.

“We take this responsibility seriously and continually review policies and practices to ensure they reflect both our legal obligations and our university community’s shared values,” said Chuck Carney, CMU’s senior director of reputation and issues management, communications and marketing, in an email.

“The broader rankings,” he said, “also show that the vast majority of colleges and universities across the country are navigating complex questions in this area and CMU remains focused on meeting these challenges with care, consistency and transparency.”

The absence of speech controversies documented in the report at CMU might be a question of timing. The university spent much of the summer dealing with anti-Zionist messages painted on its Fence — a platform for student expression — although anti-Zionist and anti-Hindu messages have been painted from time to time on the century-old Fence for at least a year.

CMU President Farnam Jahanian convened a working group in September 2025 to investigate how the Fence was managed.

CMU also investigated several students for taking part in painting the anti-Zionist messages, some of which community members and school administers said ventured into calls for violence. One of the students investigated is still barred from campus.

The Fence Working Group issued its final report in June, and on Sept. 10 the university created an Interim Fence Policy.

The policy prohibits messages painted on the Fence that contain obscenities, threatening language and harassment, vandalism, personal or ad hominem attacks and violations of university policies or law.

In a message to the CMU community, Jahanian wrote that the interim policy is “intended to provide a clear, predictable and viewpoint-neutral framework for decisions related to the Fence.”

The university, Jahanian wrote, is not seeking to limit controversial statements on the Fence but that it recognizes the Fence is “a highly visible and limited medium.”

“This reality requires us to be thoughtful in how we balance expression with the rights of listeners, the safety of our community and the responsibilities that come with speaking in a shared space,” he wrote.

While there is no time frame for a permanent policy to be announced, Carney said that interim policies can remain in place for up to 12 months.

The Chronicle reached out to Duquesne for a comment but did not receive a response before press time.

FIRE’s 2027 College Free Speech Rankings Report can be read on the organization’s website. PJC

David Rullo can be reached at drullo@pittsburghjewishchornicle.org.