Why did Furman Score an "F" in Free Speech? (September 2025)

Why did FIRE Give Furman an "F" in Free Speech?

Welcome to the Data Din, a sharp, visual snapshot of key data about Furman University, from admissions trends to faculty composition.

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.)

This year, Furman placed 195th of 257 schools, with an overall score of 54.5—an unmistakable F.

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.

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.