REPORT: Students in gender, race and environmental studies are most likely to censor speakers on campus, while engineering students are most respectful of free speech

Not all majors view controversial speakers the same way. A study of 58,807 college students from 257 campuses across the country concluded that students in the so-called "new social sciences": gender and women's studies, African American studies, ethnic and racial studies, environmental studies and related fields. At the opposite end of the spectrum are students in engineering and economics.

The study, conducted by the University of Arkansas, was published in the Journal of Political Science Education. It uses the spring 2024 survey from FIRE, the group that compiles the annual ranking of free speech on campuses.

Who's shutting down events and who's letting them continue

Students were presented with hypothetical speakers advocating controversial positions and asked whether they should be allowed to speak, on a scale from "definitely should not allow speaker" to "definitely should allow." They were also asked whether it would be acceptable to block access to such an event, to shout to drown out the speaker or to resort to violence.

Based on these responses, three indices were constructed: tolerance for controversial conservative speech, tolerance for controversial progressive speech and willingness to interrupt. The latter index is obtained by summing the three questions on blocking access, booing and violence, and ranges approximately from 3 (maximum defense of free speech) to 12 (maximum willingness to silence the speaker).

On this scale, the overall average is 5.37. The group of "new social science" students scores 5.93: a difference of half a point that, although it seems small, is quite notable on this scale (equivalent to 0.26 standard deviations above the mean) and is treated by the study as an outlier. This group is followed by agriculture (5.61), classical humanities (5.58), other social sciences (5.57) and computer science (5.50). All these differences compared to the rest are statistically significant.

Those least likely to interrupt a speech are students of engineering (5.08), economics and finance (5.16), undecided majors (5.25), education (5.26), and psychology (5.27). Political science—grouped with international relations, public policy and geography—scores 5.44: seventh out of 18, with no significant difference from the average. It is neither the most censorious nor the most permissive.

In summary, students in the "new social sciences" show a greater willingness to block or interrupt speakers than the rest, while those in political science remain at an intermediate level.

On campus, one side is tolerated more than the other

In the study, the percentages for each position correspond to the entire sample and not just to students in a specific major. Students were asked whether speakers advocating controversial positions should be allowed to speak, on a scale ranging from "definitely should not allow speaker" to "definitely should allow."

Opinions considered conservative received less acceptance: only 30% believed it should be permissible to claim that transgender people have a mental disorder, 43% were willing to tolerate discussions about criminalizing abortion, 29% tolerated the claim that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a hate group and 38% accepted justifying civilian casualties in Gaza for the sake of Israel's security.

In contrast, statements classified as progressive were met with greater tolerance: 45% accepted that the Catholic Church be described as a pedophilic institution, 43% accepted equating the police with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), 56% accepted the argument that minors should be allowed to transition without parental consent and 70% tolerated the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

The least accepted progressive position (the one regarding the police and the KKK) received the same level of support as the most accepted conservative position (banning abortion).