The involvement of outside organizations, both formal advocacy groups and informal political actors, further complicated the institutional response. In several cases, universities appeared to be responding not only to internal considerations but also to external pressure campaigns, legal threats, and media narratives that framed Palestine advocacy as antisemitic or inherently violent. The adoption of the IHRA definition further institutionalizes a problematic approach that clearly conflates anti-Israel or anti-Zionist sentiment as antisemitic. This pressure contributed to an atmosphere in which university legal counsel and compliance offices adopted a risk-averse posture, preemptively restricting student expression under the guise of protecting institutional reputation or legal standing.
What emerged from this landscape was not a neutral enforcement of campus policy, but a selective and often politicized response to student activism. While administrators publicly invoked commitments to inclusion and dialogue, their actions frequently undermined those values, privileging political expediency over principled support for free expression. One such example occurred in May 2025, where George Washington University banned commencement speaker Cecilia Culver from campus and university sponsored events due to her support of Palestine and condemnation of the university’s support of Israel. This study underscores the need for greater accountability in how universities respond to protest, particularly when that protest challenges dominant narratives or implicates institutional complicity in global injustices.
Disclaimer:
The Academic Freedom Report Card is intended as a reflective and analytical resource. It does not capture every incident or development that has occurred on university campuses. MPAC plans to expand this report card into an interactive website that will be actively monitored and updated to reflect ongoing changes within the higher education landscape.
Grading Framework
Each university received four individual grades: (1) Administration Response, (2) Police or Security Force Involvement, (3) Negotiations or Dialogue with Students, and (4) Impact on Academic Freedom and Free Speech. These four scores were then averaged to produce an overall letter grade reflecting the institution's comprehensive handling of student protests.
1. Administration Response
This criterion evaluates the timeliness, tone, and supportiveness of the university administration’s response to the protests.
A: Prompt, transparent, and supportive of students' right to protest. The administration clearly acknowledges the concerns, condemns violence, and reaffirms a commitment to human rights and free speech. No punitive action is taken against peaceful protesters.
B: Response is relatively timely and acknowledges students' concerns but lacks strong support for free speech or human rights. Minor administrative consequences may have been threatened but not enforced.
C: Delayed or neutral response that appears to avoid taking a clear stance. The administration may have downplayed the significance of the protest or took a passive position, which could discourage further student action.
D: Response is dismissive or punitive towards protesters. Administration takes no effort to acknowledge student concerns or engages in actions that silence protest (e.g., warning of severe disciplinary actions).
F: The administration actively opposes the protest, issues harsh punishments, or uses inflammatory rhetoric that supports violence or stifles freedom of expression.
2. Police or Security Force Involvement
This criterion evaluates the extent of police or campus security presence, and how they handle the protests as well as instances of heightened “militarization” on campuses.
A: No police force or a minimal, non-intimidating security presence is used. Security ensures the protest remains peaceful without interference or threats. No arrests or use of force.
B: Police or security are present but maintain a non-confrontational stance. There may be surveillance, but no force, arrests, or serious intimidation tactics. Communication between security and students is transparent.
C: Police or security presence is substantial, but they refrain from physical engagement or intimidation. However, their presence may feel excessive, and there might be threats of escalation.
D: Heavy police or security presence with clear signs of escalation, such as barricades, visible riot gear, or warnings of force. Protesters are arrested or detained, and force is used, although not excessively.
F: Police force is used aggressively against students, with excessive detentions, arrests, and violence. The response is militarized and designed to shut down the protest entirely.
3. Negotiations or Dialogue with Students
This criterion looks at whether and how the university engages in dialogue with students or offers any form of negotiation or support in response to their demands.
A: Active engagement with student representatives to understand and address their concerns. Regular open forums or meetings are held, and the administration shows genuine interest in negotiating or finding resolutions.
B: Some effort at dialogue is made, such as a meeting with student leaders, but the negotiation process lacks follow-through or actionable outcomes. Students feel heard but not entirely supported.
C: Minimal or surface-level engagement, such as issuing a general statement or holding one meeting without substantial actions or commitments. The administration does not appear interested in true negotiation.
D: No real dialogue or negotiation efforts. The administration ignores student concerns or cancels meetings, dismissing the protesters’ demands outright.
F: Open refusal to engage in any form of negotiation or dialogue. The administration consistently avoids students, even escalating tensions by refusing to address core concerns or retaliating against protest leaders.
4. Impact on Academic Freedom and Free Speech
This criterion evaluates how the university’s response affects academic freedom and free speech on campus in the context of the protests for students, faculty, and staff.
A: The university reaffirms its commitment to academic freedom and free speech, even when the protests challenge sensitive or controversial topics. No restrictions are placed on classroom discussions or research related to Palestine or the protests.
B: Free speech is generally supported, but there may be some restrictions in academic settings, such as discouraging classroom discussion of the protests or limiting research topics tangentially related to the movement.
C: The administration indirectly stifles free speech by discouraging academic engagement with the protests. Classroom discussions on the issue are limited, or faculty are subtly advised to avoid controversial topics.
D: The administration imposes direct limits on academic freedom by restricting speech, debates, or research about Palestine. Students and faculty feel pressured not to discuss or explore these topics.
F: Severe restrictions are imposed on free speech and academic freedom. The administration censors discussions, research, or events related to Palestine or punishes those who engage in such topics.
Overall Grade Calculation
The overall grade is calculated by converting each of the four criterion letter grades to their numerical equivalents (A=4.0, B=3.0, C=2.0, D=1.0, F=0.0), averaging these scores, and assigning the corresponding letter grade to reflect the university's total performance.
A (4.0): Exceptional handling of the protest across all criteria, promoting free speech, dialogue, and peaceful protests without repression.
B (3.0): Positive but flawed response; mostly supportive with minor issues.
C (2.0): Neutral or passive approach, with missed opportunities to support students or uphold free speech.
D (1.0): Generally poor response with repression, lack of dialogue, or police escalation.
F (0.0): Completely unacceptable response, marked by violence, repression, or refusal to engage.
