In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
By Jim Mamer
[Among other things] Academic freedom means that the political, religious, or philosophical beliefs of politicians, administrators, and members of the public cannot be imposed on students or faculty.
Inside Higher Ed Defining Academic Freedom
The Bill of Rights was not written to protect governments from trouble. It was written precisely to give the people the constitutional means to cause trouble for governments they no longer trusted.
Henry Steele Commager Letter to The New York Times 1971
The last line in the American National Anthem, about “the land of the free,” has always been an exaggeration. Hyperbole is the whole point in an anthem. Besides, those lyrics were written by a guy watching a fort being blown apart during the war of 1812. They did not become the official anthem until the Depression. Overstating freedom was to be expected.
Nevertheless, the promise of freedom was there from the beginning. It is the essence of the First Amendment, forbidding Congress to make laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; “media” perhaps a more accurate word in this era. As a result, most Americans seem to grow up proud of this tradition, but there are always segments of the population that have shown discomfort with whatever speech they disagree with.
That is consistent with a 2025 survey conducted by Freedom Forum, which found 90% of Americans believe that the First Amendment is vital, but only 10% could name the five freedoms mentioned, and 25% could not name one. So, in reality, public knowledge of the content of the First Amendment is, at best, lacking.
This lack of real understanding in the public helps to explain the mixed reactions to the Trump administration’s gratuitous investigations of political opponents, anger at media criticism and deployment of National Guard troops to disrupt and end lawful protests. He has even threatened to use the military against legal demonstrations and has militarized ICE agents, giving them the look of masked stormtroopers.
From the start, this administration has shown contempt for much of the Constitution, with no effective response from Congress or the Supreme Court. President Trump is not normal, but he survives largely because he is a master of contradiction and confusion: He says one thing and does the opposite.
In his 2025 inaugural address he promised “Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents.” I can’t imagine he meant that, but supporters of the administration still maintain that they are the ones defending freedom and the First Amendment.
Trump is not the first president to oppose free speech, but he is the most transparent, with his administration’s multipronged attempt to attack the First Amendment by dismantling both academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Too often, I have heard that freedom of speech and academic freedom are not the same thing. I get it; after all, these two “freedoms” are usually asserted by different people in different circumstances. Nevertheless, it is worth remembering that when these assertions are taken to court, both are said to be grounded in the First Amendment.
It is also meaningful that claims of academic freedom and free speech are usually attacked by the same people with the same agenda. Those attacking both — whether that be individuals, media, or the government — want those they don’t approve of to simply SHUT UP. Here are brief definitions of each.
Academic Freedom
Academic freedom has been defined by UNESCO as “the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results…[and] … freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies.”
In a similar definition, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) defines academic freedom as protecting teachers or researchers in higher education to investigate and discuss the issues in their academic field, and to teach and publish findings without interference.
According to The Hechinger Report the Trump administration has moved very quickly to “open dozens of investigations into universities nationwide.” Most of the individuals charged are being accused of antisemitism, as it has been recently redefined to mean any opposition to Israeli actions in Gaza and in the West Bank. I will explore the mechanics of that redefinition later.
Academic researchers are also technically protected by academic freedom, but the Supreme Court recently has said that legal fights over terminated federal grants “most likely” belong in the Court of Federal Claims, where judges lack authority to restore them.
Freedom of Speech
The First Amendment is addressed directly to the legislative branch, as in the words, “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech … or of the press ….” Since then, the Supreme Court has expanded the agencies limited by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that the Amendment protects speakers and writers against all government agencies: federal, state and local, and legislative, executive or judicial.
Freedom of Speech as defined by Iowa State University is “the right to articulate opinions and ideas without interference, retaliation or punishment from the government. The term is interpreted broadly and includes spoken and written words as well as symbolic speech (e.g., what a person wears, reads, performs, protests, and more).”
First Amendment Speech is protected equally and does not rank ideas as expressed as more or less important. Free Speech allows people to express ideas that can be unimportant and even incorrect. Exceptions to free speech have been outlined by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions, for example, in Roth v. United States (1957) and Miller v. California (1973) both of which removed what they defined as obscenity from First Amendment protection.
According to the ACLU, freedom of speech is granted to everyone legally in the country, but “In reality, government agencies sometimes use other legal tools (such as alleged/pretextual immigration violations) to silence dissent.” One example of these widened “legal tools” to silence free speech is what happened to Mahmoud Khalil.
Mr. Khalil is a former graduate student at Columbia University’s School of International Relations, a legal resident of this country and married to an American citizen. He was originally detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for three months because he had spoken out against American assisted Israeli actions in the occupied territories.
The Trump Administration appears to have understood that he might have been protected by the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, so they increased the charges against him by making up a charge that his presence poses a threat to American foreign policy. Although Mr. Khalil was released from immigration detention last summer, as I write this, the Trump administration is still pursuing a plan to deport him.
In an article published Jan. 23, Sharon Zhang reports on Truthout,”…DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said in an interview on NewsNation that the Trump administration is seeking to rearrest Khalil and deport him to Algeria.” He is not alone. There are other targets, all legally in the U.S., who have been detained on similar charges.
Let’s examine three areas in which changes demanded by the current regime are already affecting what is being taught, said or researched. What is being demanded is absurd, but those in power pretend it is serious. The areas are: banning certain words on grant applications, redefining the meaning of antisemitism, and changing biological fact by decree.
1) Banning Words
PEN America has assembled a growing list of words banned for use on grant applications, the majority of which are filed by graduate students and university faculty. Predictively it begins with “abortion” and includes such terms and phrases as “clean power,” “critical race theory,” “indigenous,” “woman,” “transgender people” and “queer.” Yes, the list actually bans the use of the words “woman” and “women” from applications.
Trump’s administration is obviously not hiding what it disapproves of. Note that the words “man” and “men” are not prohibited, but the phrase “men who have sex with men” is. This list is worth discussing in any classroom concerned with current events, politics, government or any field of science from high school to graduate school.
Denying applications that contain any of the banned words will further impoverish universities and deny society the results of the research.
There has also been a specific attempt to ban any suggestion of concern for diversity, equity or inclusion. In February of 2025 the rapidly shrinking Department of Education, opened a new online portal entitled “End DEI.”
It was meant to encourage parents, students and teachers to spy for the government by reporting any “discrimination” based on whatever seems to fit the DEI categories. Thankfully, the website was taken offline due to a federal court order that prohibited its implementation. I expect they will try again.
According to the ACLU, “The Trump administration is enthusiastically abusing its power to intimidate anyone who criticizes its policies, and to silence those who won’t fall in line.” In the same newsletter, they mention that after the murder of right-wing media influencer Charlie Kirk, the government threatened to punish anyone who speaks ill of the late activist. Free speech be damned.
Ironically, “speaking ill” of Mr. Kirk includes re-posting his own words. When Darren Michael, an associate professor of theater at Austin Peay State University, shared an article headlined “Charlie Kirk says gun deaths are ‘unfortunately’ worth it to keep 2nd Amendment.” He shared the article without adding comments of his own, but he was fired anyway. (However, the school reportedly did not follow its tenure termination process, and four months later, Michael was reinstated with a $500,000 settlement payment and reimbursement for therapeutic counseling.)
Here is another list of U.S. professors facing threats, firings and harassment over Charlie Kirk posts. The list was published in the British newspaper, The Guardian.
2) Redefining Antisemitism
This administration has attempted to escape having the First Amendment protect those speakers and writers that the administration disagrees with by redefining the word antisemitism. The traditional definition, found in my old Merriam-Webster dictionary, says that “…antisemitism is discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.”
In 2010, the State Department adopted a definition of antisemitism followed in 2016 by a definition developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) of which the United States is one of 35 members. In 2024, the U.S. government codified it into federal law. The state of California also adopted the IHRA definition when Assembly Bill No. 715 was signed by Governor Newsom in October 2025.
Unfortunately, neither government seems to have fully adopted the working definition as published. The full working definition begins with this clear statement, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Then the next paragraph lists examples or illustrations of antisemitism. What follows is the first qualification to the definition by the IHRA.
Manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
The bold print lettering is mine. I use it to draw attention to the statement that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” It should be important, but in my reading of the government bills, it is left out. Without it, virtually any criticism of Israel might be regarded as antisemitic. That omission will be used to criminalize teachers or professors who speak candidly about Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. But, of course, that is the whole point.
An insightful article posted in Truthout in November 2025 correctly predicted that
“Beginning January 1, 2026, teachers in California classrooms will be looking over their shoulders to avoid running afoul of a frightening new ‘antisemitism’ law.”
Despite widespread opposition from civil rights groups, teachers’ unions and education advocates, on Oct. 7, 2025 Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 715, which amended the California Education Code to police what teachers can teach and what students can learn about Israel and Palestine.
This can be characterized as an attack on academic freedom or perhaps as a violation of free speech, meaning normal criticism of a foreign government. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) warned about the consequences of this new definition.
In January 2026, the Los Angeles Public Press reported that a group of California teachers had attempted to block the new law before it took effect. In December 2025 U.S. District Judge Noël Wise wrote two points that merit attention: “…teachers have no First Amendment protections while teaching” and that “…the plaintiffs had failed to show the law is unconstitutional.”
In fact, one case began even before Newsom signed AB715, when a middle school history teacher, Andrea Prichett, who teaches many Palestinian students was charged with antisemitism after a student complained about her citing Israel as a modern-day example of colonialism. The case began in 2024 when Ms. Prichett was subjected to an investigation by the Berkeley Unified School District. Prichett v. Newsom, was filed on Nov. 2, 2025 and as of Jan. 13, 2026 it was ongoing.
3) Declaring that Human “Gender” is Binary
The first technique of intimidation is simply to declare something to be true. This featured prominently in Trump’s second inauguration speech when he declared, “As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.”
That declaration was immediately followed by executive orders designed to enforce this male/female binary. I find it interesting to note that Trump uses the term “gender” rather than the term “sex.” I have no idea why he did it, but his insistence that either one is strictly binary is, at the very best, debatable.
In case it helps clarify, the World Health Organization summarizes the difference between the “sex” and “gender,” In essence, “sex” refers to different biological characteristics such as reproductive organs and chromosomes. “Gender” refers to socially constructed characteristics of women and men, such as norms in relationships among groups. This all varies from society to society and can be changed.
Contrary to Trump’s declaration, there are many human cultures that have recognized gender identities other than male and female. “Nonbinary people have often occupied unique positions in their societies.” And they include some Indigenous North American communities some of which use the term “two-spirit.” That term has been adopted to refer to people in these communities who are believed to embody both a male spirit and a female spirit.
Contrary to Trump’s declaration, babies continue to be born with body parts or genes that don’t fit typical male or female definitions. These are usually referred to as intersex (which is different from nonbinary). How common is that? “If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1,500 to 1 in 2,000 births.”
I trust that the president actually believes he has a right, perhaps a Divine Right, to dictate what truth is, even if that truth is contradicted by a majority of scientific researchers. No legislation, no hearings, no discussion is necessary. The King has spoken! Thus, intersex people do not exist. And, gender dysphoria does not exist.
Fighting “Gender Ideology”
The arguments against the administration’s insistence on a mandatory gender binary are labeled as people pushing a “gender ideology.” This ridiculous term is meant to denigrate those who hold that gender is best understood on a complex spectrum.
But now, anyone who teaches, or discusses with a class, something more complex than “two genders” can be fired. In September of 2025, a student at Texas A&M University filmed her argument with Senior Lecturer Melissa McCoul, who, while teaching a class on Literature for Children, suggested that gender is not necessarily binary.
As the discussion began, a student, with a phone in her lap, pressed record video and then raised her hand. “I just have a question, because I’m not entirely sure this is legal to be teaching,” said the student, who went on to accuse the teacher of violating “President Donald Trump’s executive order, which recognizes only two biological sexes.”
Soon after, McCoul was fired. Texas A&M President Mark A. Welsh III resigned due to criticism about his original defence of McCoul. The Faculty Council then complained that the professor’s dismissal violated Academic Freedom, but vice chancellor James Hallmark upheld the firing saying that it was done with “good cause.”
Should Academic Freedom be Extended to K-12 Teachers?
The Supreme Court has never granted academic freedom full constitutional status, but it has ruled both for and against the protection of academic freedom on the basis of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, it is a matter of free speech in a particular context.
First Amendment free speech, with some exceptions, like obscenity (Miller v. California 1973), normally applies to everyone. Academic freedom is different in the sense that, to quote Inside Higher Ed, it is “about doing a job.” It comes as no surprise that educators at all levels are grappling with growing legislative efforts to restrict what teachers can say and do in the classroom.
In the past, I had hoped that the protection of academic freedom, supported by the First Amendment, would be extended to teachers at all levels. I was encouraged by indications that extending it to teachers in K-12 classrooms was actually possible.
My optimism came from court decisions like Wieman v. Updegraff (1952) which unanimously overruled an Oklahoma statute that disqualified people from teaching on the basis of membership in an organization declared subversive. In his concurring opinion, Justice Felix Frankfurter endorsed the issue of academic freedom for teachers at all levels.
Optimism also came from the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) in which the Court recognized that students were entitled to free speech, writing that, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.”
When those decisions were overturned in Garcetti v. Caballos (2006) the Court redefined teachers as simply “public employees.” The decision held that “…when a public employee speaks in the course of performing his/her job duties, the First Amendment affords no constitutional protection whatsoever; the First Amendment simply does not apply.”
In essence, what the Court decided was that, in the future, it would be acceptable for school districts to tell teachers exactly what they were to teach. Perhaps, in the worst case, they could command that teachers only teach what is in the textbooks.
So, I no longer expect K-12 teachers will be covered by Academic Freedom in my lifetime. In fact, I’m not even certain they will continue to be protected by First Amendment free speech in or out of the classroom.
Perhaps another executive order could transform teachers into modern-day “town criers,” standing in front of a classroom reading from a script, written by an administrator, as the official lesson for the day.
These are issues that need to be publicly discussed and debated now, if for no other reason than the fact that the Trump administration has broken new ground in its attempts to limit K-12 teaching through his executive orders, especially Ending Radical Indoctrination in K – 12 Schooling and Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History. (My response to the second order is here.)
In both, Trump targets what he imagines as “radical indoctrination.” He threatens to cut federal funds for schools teaching critical race theory (CRT), “gender ideology,” or concepts deemed “anti-American,” like “discriminatory equity ideology.” He promotes what he calls “patriotic education,” restricting discussions on race and gender identity, and reaffirming the ban on DEI.
Without Free Speech and Academic Freedom, What Kind of Society are We Creating?
We must clear away the twisted web of lies in our schools and classrooms, and teach our children the magnificent truth about our country. We want our sons and daughters to know that they are the citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.
Donald Trump
Remarks on American History 2020
If trends continue censoring the most essential learnings, I can imagine large numbers of high school graduates entering universities having spent their years in elementary school and high school never having been taught about an American history that includes racism, slavery, and Jim Crow. And never having learned of unjust wars.
High School graduates will enter college never having learned about the long fight for women’s rights, the valiant fight for labor rights, or the sacrifices made for civil rights. Martin Luther King, Jr. might be reduced to a man who had a perplexing dream. (Admittedly we are approaching that as I write.)
If these trends continue, students will graduate never having read imaginative children’s literature and never having read the likes of John Steinbeck, Gabriel García Márquez, Toni Morrison, Margaret Atwood, Sherman Alexie, Alice Walker, Chinua Achebe, Kurt Vonnegut, or James Baldwin. All of these have written books NOW banned from some schools and libraries.
If these trends continue and research grants are denied when the proposal is focused on women, the Indigenous or the disabled. We might actually move back to a time when research, almost all research, was focused on the average man, although now it might be the average white man.
If these trends continue, the government will redefine words to fit their needs. As Orwell wrote: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. And perhaps those phrases will be updated to fit current circumstances:
Diversity is Racism
Equity is Favoritism
Inclusion is Exclusion
It is difficult to imagine all this turning out well, so I will leave you with a warning from Timothy Snyder’s booklet On Tyranny. Dr. Snyder, a former Yale Professor of Central and Eastern European history is now teaching at the University of Toronto.
To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true,
then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis
upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.
The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.
Jim Mamer
Jim Mamer is a retired high school teacher. He was a William Robertson Coe Fellow for the Study of American History at Stanford University in 1984. He served as chair of the History and Social Sciences department for 20 years (first at Irvine High and then at Northwood High). He was a mentor teacher in both Modern American History and Student Assessment. In 1992 he was named History and Social Sciences Teacher of the Year by the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS).
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.