A free-speech group has once again placed Hillsdale College on its “warning” list. 

Hillsdale College received a “warning” designation from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression with an overall score of 46.73 in its 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, well below the top-ranked University of Virginia, which scored 73.41. 

Laura Beltz, director of policy reform for FIRE, explained that while the evaluation considers multiple factors, it is based mainly on the institution’s written policies.

“We look to see if a private school has a clear and unequivocal commitment to freedom of expression,” Beltz said. “At Hillsdale, there isn’t a statement on the books that guarantees students the right to free speech. Certain policies state that the college’s values mean some types of speech or expressive activities are prohibited, and that’s what puts it into the warning category.”

FIRE’s rankings assess college policies, student experiences, and institutional responses to free speech controversies, placing schools with policies that prioritize other values above free speech on its “warning” list.

In collaboration with College Pulse, FIRE surveyed 58,807 students from 257 colleges and universities between Jan. 25 and June 17, 2024. This survey included responses from Hillsdale students enrolled in four-year degree programs.

While FIRE’s label may raise questions for outsiders, Hillsdale’s administration  expressed  confidence in the college’s commitment to free speech.

Emily Davis, Hillsdale’s executive director of media relations & communications said that the “warning” label is “misleading and inaccurate.” According to Davis, FIRE’s methodology fails to capture the true nature of free expression on Hillsdale’s campus. 

“The issue, as FIRE sees it, is that Hillsdale doesn’t subscribe to an all-or-nothing view of free speech,” Davis said. “Hillsdale absolutely promotes free speech, but it’s framed within the principle of civility. Students are encouraged to speak their minds, but they’re also expected to do so in a way that contributes to academic discourse. That’s something FIRE’s criteria may not fully take into account.”

College President Larry Arnn has been outspoken about Hillsdale’s approach to free expression. He said freedom of speech is essential to a college’s mission, but not in an unrestricted sense. 

“The purpose of a college includes freedom of speech, but not as an absolute,” Arnn told The Collegian in an email. “Instead, students are guaranteed here that they may say whatever they please, if they can contrive to say it in a civil and academic manner contributing to thought. That is the purpose of a college. This particular college remembers that purpose.”

Arnn emphasized that Hillsdale’s policies, which students agree to when signing the college’s honor code, are clear from the admissions process onward. 

“Students are told about this at every stage of the admissions process, and they signify their understanding of it and other things like it in their signing of an honor code,” he said.

Despite the “warning” label, Hillsdale’s own analysis of FIRE’s survey data suggests that students feel overwhelmingly supported in expressing their views.

For instance, in response to the question, “How clear is it to you that your college administration protects free speech on campus?” — a key metric in FIRE’s rankings — 84% of Hillsdale students reported that it was either “extremely” or “very clear” that their free speech rights were protected, according to Davis. Nationally, the average was just 34%, with the next closest institution, Liberty University, at 50%, Davis said.

Similarly, when students were asked about their comfort level in discussing controversial political topics in class, 87% of Hillsdale students said they were “very” or “somewhat comfortable” doing so—compared to the national average of 47%. The sense of security extended beyond classrooms, as 97% of Hillsdale students reported feeling comfortable expressing controversial views in public spaces like the campus quad or dining halls, far above the national average of 50%.

Beltz said FIRE’s survey results show that Hillsdale students say they feel comfortable expressing themselves.

“That’s great,” she said, “but the rating of the policies is just that — it’s only looking at what the written policies say, and Hillsdale doesn’t have a clear commitment to protecting free speech. If a student were to face punitive action for their speech, they wouldn’t have the legal or moral recourse to say, ‘You promised me free speech rights.’”

According to Arnn, the college’s stance on free speech is not just about allowing unrestricted expression, but rather about ensuring that expression contributes positively to academic life. 

“The result of our policy is two-fold,” Arnn said. “The first is positive: we are able to learn together, which is what human beings are made to do. The second is that we do not have students roaming our campus, screaming venom at each other. Our classes continue with intensity and good order.”

Nonetheless, FIRE remains concerned about policies that restrict certain types of expression, particularly those that aim to enforce civility.

 “The problem with civility policies is that civility is in the eye of the beholder,” Beltz said. “Yes, civility is a good aspiration to strive toward, but enforcing civility can really restrict folks.”

As an example, Beltz pointed to a case at San Francisco State University where students were charged under a civility policy for stomping on Hamas flags during a protest. 

“The policy was challenged and thrown out by a federal judge, and the university had to revise their policy as a result because sometimes arguments and speech do require passion, and that may seem uncivil to others, but that’s necessary to get the speaker’s message across,” Beltz said. “Enforcing civility can end up restricting free speech in unintended ways.”

In last year’s ranking, Hillsdale was similarly placed in the “warning” category, despite scoring highly on student perceptions of free speech. 

“Let me suggest to FIRE that if they undertook the difficult business of managing a college, they would have a better sense of what a college is,” Arnn said. “In the meantime, they may carry on as outside, ill-informed critics, which is easier.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The original article misnamed the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. This has since been corrected.