The University of Iowa was given a D- grade by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, on free speech protections in its 2026 report.

The university’s score has remained steady, improving by less than two percent in the most recent rankings. The UI was given a 60 out of 100 in the April 2025 report, and a 61.6 this year.

FIRE is a nonprofit, civil liberties group founded to protect the freedom of speech on college campuses.

In the 2026 report released on Sept. 8, categories such as “self-censorship” and “political tolerance” got lower grades than years prior, now both receiving an F.

The UI ranked in the top 25 for “administrative support,” but still received a D- grade in the section.

Brett Johnson, associate professor at the UI and licensed attorney, said freedom of speech, a right guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, applies to all government spaces and has a unique place at public universities.

“You have a lot of young, impressionable minds that often can be very motivated to get behind a cause,” Johnson said.

He said universities can only “tinker around the edges” with their speech codes because they are subject to the  First Amendment.

FIRE works to defend the free speech rights of college students releasing extensive rankings and reporting about free speech on campuses nationwide. Sean Stevens, chief research adviser at FIRE, described their mission as: “if it is protected, we will defend it.”

Stevens explained the methodology behind their analysis and ranking system. He said the rankings, primarily determined by student survey results, are representative of the overall environment on college campuses.

“We’re trying to measure the climate for people who feel comfortable expressing their views, even if they know what they’re saying might be unpopular, controversial, or a minority view — they feel comfortable doing it,” Stevens said.

The alternative would be performing a legal analysis of university administrations informed by previous court decisions dictating what schools can and cannot restrict regarding free speech on campus.

Johnson questioned FIRE’s reporting methods, specifically the analysis on the overall tolerance climate of differing viewpoints on campus, as opposed to using legal qualifications about what is and is not permissible under the First Amendment.

Stevens added FIRE has members of its research team, campus advocacy team, and attorneys analyze individual events on campuses — interpreted by news reports, posts, videos, or any other publicly available information — which could positively or negatively affect a school’s ranking.

FIRE utilizes policy advocacy and litigation to advance its mission of expanding free speech on college campuses in the U.S.

Students surveys reveal hesitation to speak up

The survey, distributed by College Pulse, asked over 68,500 students at 257 schools across the country how they felt about expressing themselves on campus. This included how frequently students felt the need to self-censor, how comfortable they have felt expressing themselves truthfully, and perceived level of political tolerance on campus.

When asked “How clear is it to you that your college administration protects free speech on campus?” 91 percent of respondents responded “somewhat clear,” “very clear,” or “extremely clear.”

Johnson said if FIRE’s concerns revolve around tolerance for speech among the student body, that is something that should not be the university’s job to manage.

He said FIRE should be considering the annual free speech training, mandated by Iowa law and taken annually by faculty, staff, and students, into the rankings. He also referenced one of his own courses, Freedom of Expression — which looks explicitly at First Amendment principles and cases — as another missed factor.

Josh Lehman, senior communications director for the Iowa Board of Regents, said the UI follows free speech policy directed by the board.

The lengthy policy statement details the regents’ goals of ensuring diversity of thoughts and opinions, and encouraging students to engage in meaningful debate on campus.

“The universities must strive to ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression allowed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” the statement said.

Lehman said the policies are being constantly reviewed “to ensure cross-institutional consistency and compliance with the law, while identifying areas for improvement” by the board’s Free Speech and Student Affairs Committee.

“All of these are really good investments in showing the university cares about the First Amendment, and what has that led to? Getting a rating of 30? That makes me question: What does 100 look like? Is it anarchy? Is it anything goes?” Johnson said.

Stevens said though those factors, including required First Amendment training and relevant courses, are not a direct component of the rankings,  and they should be reflected in the distributed surveys.

“There’s a good amount of academic research indicating students who have course experience and knowledge tend to be more tolerant,” Stevens said. “If you buy that research, it should in theory show up in some of the different survey components.”

Claremont McKenna College tops the free speech rankings in the 2026 report but was only given a grade of B-.

Stevens said having a school get a perfect score would be impossible because the scores are so heavily reliant on student perceptions, and student responses will vary.

UI falls short

Stevens said a policy reform team separately analyzes schools’ individual speech codes, in which schools are given a green, yellow, or red light rating. Of the analyzed policies, the UI currently has one receiving a yellow rating — a community policy broadly defining sexual harassment, analyzed in a report released April 2025.

Stevens said schools receiving a yellow ranking can be the worst because speech codes are so ambiguous they are not evenly enforced.

Senior Policy Counsel Ryans Ansloan, a member of FIRE’s policy reform team, described why the UI received a lesser rating in a statement to The Daily Iowan.

He said university policy falls short of the Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment, provided in the 1999 decision Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. The 5-to-4 vote said schools may be liable if they act with deliberate indifference if harassment takes place preventing a student from having equal access to the institution’s opportunities.

The definition required behavior to be “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive,” Ansloan said in the statement.

He added the UI’s definition included none of those components, and the provided list of examples on prohibited behavior are broad and vague, and “could include anything from an off-color joke to awkward efforts to ask a classmate on a date.”

“Such broad language is ripe for administrative abuse, which is another reason the policy earns a yellow light rating,” Ansloan said.

Johnson continued to disagree with FIRE’s rating of UI policy and said having a more rigid definition could lead to more inappropriate behavior falling through the cracks.

“If you really follow the logic, what they’re saying is, ‘Oh, I’m a misogynist who wants to say something incredibly sexist, because that is my political message, but I’m worried that this will be considered harassment, so therefore, poor me, I’m going to self-censor,’” Johnson said.

Speaking out in light of ratings

Despite subpar rankings, UI officials emphasized the importance of free speech and varying student perspectives on campus.

Steve Schmadeke, UI public relations manager, said on behalf of the university in a statement to the DI that freedom of expression
is “essential to the educational mission of the university.” He provided statistics from free speech surveys, most recently distributed by the Iowa Board of Regents in 2024. The survey showed an improving attitude toward free speech on campus. Lehman said in a statement to the DI that ensuring free speech on campus  is paramount

“The universities encourage students and staff to hear diverse points of view from speakers and programs sponsored by the university or recognized student, faculty, or staff organizations,” Lehman said in the statement. “The universities have policies to protect free speech that are viewpoint-neutral.  Our campuses must continue to provide a safe environment, while allowing for the free and open expression of ideas.”