Celebrating Valentine’s Day this past weekend, we thought we’d take a look at what dating and marriage have been like at Furman over the years.

At freshman orientation in 1995, President David Shi reportedly told students: Look to your left. Look to your right. One of you is going to marry someone you meet at Furman.

At the time, many believed Furman had an especially high rate of alumni who met and married. That belief gave rise to campus folklore, most notably the legend that couples who share their first kiss under the Belltower will eventually wind up at the altar. Today, the legend still endures.

Whether you choose to believe it is another matter. But the question remains: Was there ever truth to Furman’s reputation for producing marriages? And does it still hold today? Are Furman students and alumni more likely to get married than their peers at other schools?

The available data are limited, but what we do have suggests that Furman once did have a notably high marriage rate. In 2018, The New York Times reported on a study by the Equality of Opportunity Project tracking Americans born in the early 1980s. The study followed where they attended college, their parents’ income levels, and whether they were married in 2014.

According to that study, 65% of Furman students born between 1980 and 1984 – likely attended Furman between 1998 and 2006 – were married in 2014.

Nationally, this placed Furman 99th. We lost out to 13th ranked Samford with a 74% marriage rate. Wofford edged out Furman, ranking 80th with a 66% rate. But we ranked higher than Davidson (183, 61%), South Carolina (415, 54%), College of Charleston (439, 53%). For more details, see the chart below:

Of course, overall marriage rates do not prove that Furman students were marrying one another. But given the limited data available, it is the best indicator we have to evaluate the origins of the Belltower legend.

So what about today? Is Furman still producing relationships that lead to marriage? Is the Belltower magic still working?

The answer, unfortunately, is likely not — or at least not to the same extent.

In recent years, a handful of couples have gotten married shortly after graduation. But these cases appear to be the exception rather than the rule.

Fewer and fewer Paladins have been looking to meet a spouse on campus in recent decades. And by some accounts, many students have stepped away from dating altogether.

As early as 2001, Furman Magazine described the campus as experiencing a “dating vacuum,” defined by “two extremes: those who don’t date, and those looking to earn their ‘M.R.S.’ degree.” The article also noted a broader cultural shift, as students at Furman and across the country increasingly preferred “hookups” over traditional dating, contributing to a decline in campus dating culture nationwide.

Twenty-five years later, not much seems to have changed.

In 2021, a Furman student interviewed three different female students about dating at Furman. Each referenced Furman’s prominent hook up culture, leading the author to conclude that “because a lot of Furman’s culture revolves around hookups rather than dating, people sometimes feel pressured to do that.”

Furman is hardly unique in this trend. The transformation of dating culture has taken place on college campuses across the country. Still, it feels ironic — perhaps even a little disappointing — that a university known for its romantic legend, and frequently chosen as the setting for weddings and engagements, seems to be producing fewer such stories among its own students.

And yet, perhaps the Belltower legend still holds some quiet power.

A happy belated Valentine’s Day to all.

Before January ends, we want to take one more look back at 2025.

As longtime readers will know, On Discourse was launched in Fall 2023 and has become Furman’s premier initiative to improve the free-speech climate on campus and to “encourage constructive discourse across differences.”

In 2025 alone, nearly 2,000 Furman students participated in On Discourse events and activities. In December, the program released an end-of-year report detailing its impact, which you can read in full here.

For our purposes, we want to highlight several encouraging data points that suggest On Discourse is meaningfully improving students’ attitudes toward free speech and open dialogue.

Consider this graph from the report, which compares student responses before and after participating in intensive “teach-in” events focused on current political topics such as DOGE and tariffs.

Prior to participating, only 39% of students disagreed with the statement:

“If I am sure about something, I don’t waste too much time listening to other people’s arguments.”

After participating, that number rose to 55% — a 16-point increase. In other words, On Discourse helped a significant share of students recognize the importance of listening to new ideas and arguments, even when those ideas challenge their firmly held beliefs.

The program also made students more willing to engage with people who hold different social identities and perspectives. After participating, 59% of students (up from 55%) disagreed with the statement:

“I avoid conversations with people with other social identities who hold really different perspectives from my own.”

In addition to the teach-ins and other CLPs, some students also enrolled in new “discourse-based” courses, including the class on Civil Discourse discussed by Dr. Liz Smith in our latest Paladin Report.

These courses produced similarly positive results. Agreement with the statement “conflict is healthy in a democracy” increased by 6 percentage points among students who participated in the courses.

Students also reported substantial gains in their comfort and confidence discussing controversial issues. The share who felt somewhat or very comfortable expressing perspectives that differ significantly from their own rose from 53% to 68%.

Meanwhile, confidence in discussing difficult topics with people who hold opposing views jumped nearly 20 points, from 62% before the course to nearly 80% after.

Finally, large majorities of students reported that these courses improved their ability to listen with empathy, think critically, appreciate diverse perspectives, and participate in discussions without escalating conflict.

All of this represents real progress.

Furman still has a long way to go in creating a truly healthy climate for free speech. Most critically, the university must address the lack of intellectual and political diversity among its faculty — an issue we highlighted in our latest letter to President Davis.

But for now, it is worth recognizing the good work already accomplished by the On Discourse program. We hope President Davis will continue to grow and expand this effort in 2026 and beyond.

Subscribe now

We wish you and your family safe travels, a delicious meal, and good conversation this week. To fuel that conversation — and help you steer it away from more polemical topics — we’re sharing a deep dive into what Furman’s Form 990s reveal about how our alma mater has allocated and spent money over the past decade.

📄 What Is a Form 990?

A Form 990 is an IRS tax return that virtually all private U.S. colleges and universities must file annually. Because nonprofits like Furman do not pay income tax, the Form 990 is the primary public document providing insight into the institution’s finances.

One section lists the salaries of the institution’s highest-paid employees. FFSA analyzed and organized this data from 2014 (when President Davis was hired) through 2023 (the most recent year available) to help readers understand how Furman’s compensation patterns have shifted under her tenure.

⚠️ A Necessary Disclaimer

A 990 only reports compensation for roughly the top 15–20 earners each year. It excludes the vast majority of faculty and staff, as well as many significant expenses relevant to academics and athletics. Still, the data allow us to track high-level trends in Furman’s spending priorities.

📊 What the Numbers Show

It will come as no surprise that many of the highest-paid employees are administrators or coaches — a typical pattern across American universities. But the more revealing story is how this list has changed over time.

Below are the major trends.

📈 1. Furman’s Spending on Top Employees Has Risen Nearly 70% Since 2014

U.S. inflation rose roughly 30% over the same period. Furman’s compensation for top earners has, therefore, far outpaced inflation.

Performance doesn’t fully explain the increase. In 2015, Furman ranked 51st in U.S. News. In 2023, it ranked 46th — an improvement, but not one that justifies a near doubling of top-level compensation.

So where did the additional spending go?

Share

🧑‍💼 2. Most New Spending Has Flowed to Administrators

We categorized Furman’s top earners into:

• Academics – professors, the dean of faculty, and provosts

• Athletics – director and major coaches

• Administration – President, VPs, CIO, COO, etc.

The top earners list has become increasingly dominated by administrators — both because administrative salaries have risen dramatically and because the number of administrators represented has grown.

Example:
Tom Evelyn, former VP for University Communications, earned:

• $121,948 in 2016

• $358,736 in 2023

Meanwhile, professors have disappeared from the top-paid list.

• 2015: Four professors were among the highest-paid

• 2023: Only one — Dr. George Shields (Chemistry)

In places where top-paid professors once appeared, we now see roles like General Counsel and Chief of Staff.

This shift strongly suggests that resources have been increasingly diverted away from academics and toward administration.

📉 3. Administrative Growth Has Come at the Direct Expense of Academics

Over the last decade, administrative spending has exploded both absolutely and as a percentage of the budget. Spending on athletics has grown but remains steady at roughly one-quarter of the budget. Meanwhile, direct expenditure on academics has been consistently squeezed.

This is the central trend our analysis uncovers.

Here you can see it even more starkly:

Leave a comment

🧭 4. Context, Context, Context

Now, it is true that most faculty salaries are far below the 990 reporting threshold, so they don’t appear in our data. Moreover, when fewer professors break into the data due to grant slowdowns or policy changes, the “academic” percentage collapses, even if total faculty compensation at the university remains flat or rises.

And, indeed, Furman’s audited financial statements show that total instruction expense has actually risen in absolute dollars over the decade, though it has lagged endowment growth and total spending.

Subscribe now

📊5. National Trends and Particular Examples

However, this doesn’t mean Furman doesn’t have a problem with excessive administrative spending.

The national pattern of administrative bloat is well documented (AP, US News and World Report, and Forbes).

Our data simply show that Furman is not immune to this national trend.

Moreover, anecdotes from campus indicate that this is a very real anxiety at Furman.

• In 2024, The Paladin reported that faculty were informed there would be no raises for the 2024–25 academic year (except in cases of promotion).

• President Davis cited rising healthcare costs, but other benefits, such as retirement contributions, have also been cut.

• As Professor Brandon Inabinet put it in The Paladin, “Inflation was 4.7% in 2021, 8% in 2022, and 4.1% in 2023, while salary increases have been 4%, 4% and 0%. So, in the last couple of years, most faculty will have lost almost 10% of their livelihood.”

• And just last month, Furman’s chapter of Young Democratic Socialists of America staged a walkout with “dozens of students and professors” to put pressure on the administration to raise wages for students and salaries for faculty.

These students seem to be sensing the same disparity that the data reveal: The University is increasingly spending more money on administration while tightening its budget in other areas.

This administrative bloat is causing Furman to have financial and cultural problems, and it won’t be solved until the University’s leadership makes a serious attempt to change course.

This week, we are looking forward to seeing many of you at Furman’s homecoming celebration this Saturday. As a reminder, the Furman Free Speech Alliance will have a tent on Furman’s rugby field and be serving Henry’s BBQ to our fellow Paladins. All are welcome!

As we all head back to our old alma mater, we thought it would be fun to consider how Furman’s cost of annual tuition has changed over time. So, we dug through the old archives and university bulletins to find out.

Here are the resutlts!

Furman’s tuition cost $550 per year in 1960. It was $1,256 in 1970. In 1980, it ran you $3,008. By 1990, it reached $9,024. It had increased to $17,888 by 2000. In 2010 it came out to $36,296. And by 2020 it hit $51,712. Today, it is $61,034.

This is a dramtic increase, even when compared to the average cost of other private colleges’ tuition and fees.

It is also a much more drastic percentage increase in price than almost any other service or product over that same time period. Consider:

• A Big Mac cost 45 cents in 1960. Now, it costs $5.79. That’s a %1,187 increase.

• A gallon of gas cost .31 cents in 1960. Now, it costs $3.30. That’s a %965 increase.

• A gallon of milk cost $1.00 in 1960. Now, it costs $4.17. That’s a %317 increase.

But Furman tops them all. It has increased in price %10,997 since 1960.

What year(s) did you go to Furman and how much did tuition cost? Let us know in the comments!

Leave a comment

Looking forward to seeing you all on Saturday. Go Dins!

This month, our post comes courtesy of Bobby Ramkissoon, Program Manager for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

Below, he explains why Furman received an “F” in FIRE’s latest “College Free Speech” rankings. We hope you enjoy.

Furman alumni, brace yourselves: Your alma mater just earned an F in free speech.

Each year, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), in partnership with College Pulse, publishes the College Free Speech Rankings—the nation’s most comprehensive survey of its kind. More than 68,000 students at 257 colleges shared their experiences this year.

Schools are assessed along three dimensions:

1. Student perceptions: comfort expressing ideas, self-censorship, political tolerance, openness, and administrative support.

2. Campus policies: FIRE’s “green,” “yellow,” or “red light” ratings, with credit for adopting the Chicago Statement or committing to institutional neutrality.

3. Speech controversies: deplatformings, disciplinary actions, or other attempts to silence protected expression.

The results yield a single score, which is converted into a national ranking and letter grade. (Read more about our methodology here.)

A Promise Broken

The grade is surprising at first glance. In 2024, Furman made headlines by adopting the Chicago Statement on Free Expression, widely regarded as the gold standard for universities that want to affirm open debate.

But the university hasn’t lived up to that promise.

Furman still carries FIRE’s dreaded “red light” rating for restrictive speech policies. Chief among them: the Interim Sexual Misconduct Policy, which empowers administrators to punish “offensive” or “unwelcome” sexual expression. Such vague standards risk sweeping up everything from risqué jokes to serious classroom discussions.

The Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) has made clear that student-on-student harassment is limited to behavior that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive to deny equal educational access. Furman’s policy goes far beyond that, chilling lawful expression across campus.

Subscribe now

Controversy and Crackdown

Furman also scored poorly due to past speech controversies. In 2025, administrators suspended longtime computer science professor Chris Healy after photos surfaced of him attending the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

Attending a lawful rally—even one many find abhorrent—is protected expressive activity. By punishing Healy, Furman sent a dangerous message: unpopular but lawful expression can cost faculty their careers. True free speech means defending even the speech we most dislike.

Student Attitudes: A Chilling Picture

Policy failures are only part of the problem. FIRE surveyed more than 150 Furman students, revealing troubling attitudes:

• 46% self-censor at least once a month.

• 67% say shouting down a speaker is acceptable at least in rare cases.

• 15% believe violence can sometimes be justified to stop a campus speaker.

Furman’s student body also skews more than two-to-one liberal to conservative. That imbalance contributes to hostility toward dissenting views. For example, when asked whether the school should allow a speaker who has said “transgender people have a mental disorder,” 44% responded definitely not, with another 37% saying probably not.

The combination of ideological uniformity and restrictive policies fosters a climate inhospitable to debate.

A Way Forward

The good news: schools can turn things around. Vanderbilt University jumped from 140th to 7th in just one year by reforming its policies and embracing neutrality. Dartmouth rose from 224th to 35th after similar reforms. The rankings are not destiny—they’re a reflection of choices.

For Furman, the path is clear:

1. Fix the red-light policies. Align the sexual misconduct code with Supreme Court standards, eliminating vague bans on protected expression.

2. Adopt institutional neutrality. By pledging not to take sides on political controversies, Furman can reassure students it will remain a true marketplace of ideas.

3. Foster greater openness. Administrators should encourage faculty and student groups to host difficult conversations, defend controversial speakers, and build a culture of debate.

Furman has already shown it can embrace free expression in principle. Now it must live that principle daily—in its classrooms, policies, and campus culture.

This is where alumni matter. You can hold the university accountable, remind it of its best traditions, and insist it fulfill the promise it made in 2024.

Because in the end, the “F” in Furman doesn’t have to mean failure. With your help, it can stand for freedom.

Leave a comment

This week, we bring you data on Furman’s freshman enrollment.

The class of 2029 starts “Fall Orientation” at Furman this Thursday (August 21). Now, I could write an entire editorial outlining the numerous problems with Furman’s orientation program — not least of which is that the whole thing is replete with political indoctrination.

But instead, I want to present data about this new class of Paladins that provide context for the big story of the month: Fitch revising Furman’s bond rating to negative.

One of the main causes behind Fitch’s negative assessment is Furman’s “increasingly vulnerable enrollment demand profile.” In other words, they’re worried that Furman will struggle financially because it won’t bring in enough students each year.

To support this claim, Fitch cites the fact that this incoming class of Paladins is small, writing that “undergraduate student deposits of 571 in April 2025” were “slightly below the 621 level in the prior year.” And a quick reference to Furman’s common data sets shows that this diminishment in the size of the incoming freshman class is part of a broader trend. The number of freshmen enrolling each fall has dropped consistently since President Elizabeth Davis took over in 2014:

This trend is driven by many different factors.

Some are national, such as:

• Demographic decline — Falling birth rates over the past few decades have reduced the pool of college-aged students. Colleges call this the “Enrollment Cliff.”

• Rising costs — Tuition and overall college costs have surged far beyond inflation, outpacing both state funding and family incomes.

  • The total cost of obtaining an undergraduate degree at Furman now stands at nearly $75,000 per year (though most students aren’t paying full price as the university has been forced to increasingly discount tuition to boost enrollment — another of Fitch’s concerns).

• Doubts about return on investment — Americans have become increasingly skeptical of the return on investment for a four-year degree.

• Cultural animus — Schools around the countty have prioritized DEI over more traditional American values, driving students away.

• Covid-19 — Many students delayed or skipped college altogether because of the pandemic. First-year enrollment in fall 2020 dropped by more than 13% nationally.

But some are particular to Furman:

• Competitive regional environment — Furman competes in an increasingly crowded regional market, with larger public universities and lower-cost private colleges across the Southeast drawing from the same shrinking pool of students.

• Skip-over school status — , who writes about colleges and universities, says that Furman is a “skip-over-school” — caught between the Ivies and other elite privates and those cheaper regional flagships with generous scholarships.

I’m not sure if Furman’s administration would acknowledge it now, but when I was a student working in admissions — around 2019-2021 — I remember clearly being informed that Furman was pursuing a strategy of increasing the number of applicants while decreasing the number of accepted students.

The idea was to decrease Furman’s acceptance rate and thus increase its prestige (and position in the national rankings).

Such a strategy has clear upsides, but the risk is exactly the situation Furman finds itself in now. Accepting fewer students leads to fewer students enrolling. Fewer students enrolling leads to strain on the operational budget. And this strain leads to Fitch revising your bond rating!

Such a strategy also raises the question: What kind of school should Furman aspire to be?

• A lower-tier elite private school that attracts the best and the brightest from around the world?

• Or a top-tier regional private school that serves the Carolinas and surrounding areas?

Let us know what you think — and why — in the comments!

Leave a comment

This week, we bring you data on Furman’s four-year graduation rates.

With fall orientation kicking off one month from today and students getting ready to start their freshmen year, these figures are more relevant than ever. That’s because they tell us how many of these new Paladins will likely graduate within four years, which Furman says is “the goal for most undergraduates.”

The data, which are the most up to date available on Furman’s own website, might surprise you. Overall, they suggest that Furman has a slightly lower four-year graduation rate than peer institutions. They also indicate that race plays a factor, with black and Hispanic four-year graduation rates at Furman being significantly lower most years.

Here’s the data:

Share

And here are several comparisons to our peer institutions:

It should be noted that results for 2020 and later have some covid-induced effects, which won’t be fully expunged until 2027. It should also be noted that six-year graduations, rather than four-year rates, are often used by colleges and universities. Nevertheless, these data are interesting and prompt several questions:

1. Why are graduation rates lower for black and Hispanic students at Furman?

2. Why are we lagging behind our peers in almost every category?

3. Why have white graduation rates improved since Covid-19 while others have gotten worse? Do we expect that trend to change?

4. What is the importance of a graduation rate?

5. What can we do to improve graduation rates for all students at Furman?

At FFSA, we hope this graph and these questions prompt debate among Furman’s administration and faculty, as well as among you — our readers! Please let us know what you think and leave a comment.

Leave a comment