At Graphs About Religion, Washington University political scientist Ryan Burge looks at FIRE’s battery of questions about freedom of speech, put to 68,000 students at 250 U.S. colleges this year (offering illustrative graphs):

When they were presented with the statement about “blocking other students from attending a campus speech”, 22% of respondents said that action was sometimes or always acceptable. On the issue of using violence to stop a speech, that figure was 15%. So there is certainly a small but not marginal group of college students who are willing to engage in what I would describe as extreme measures to stop a speaker from voicing their opinions.

The third statement was, “shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus” and received much more support than the other two. In fact, only 28% of respondents thought this was never an acceptable course of action and 35% said it was rarely acceptable. That leaves 37% of college students who believe that shouting down a speaker is sometimes or always acceptable.

“Freedom for the Thought That We Hate,” September 7, 2026

● Students who describe themselves as conservative were significantly more likely than moderates or liberals to say that it is never okay to block students from attending a speech or shout down a speaker.

● Nearly half of self-described atheists (45%) thought it was sometimes or always acceptable to shout down a speaker.

● Latter Day Saints (Mormons) were least likely to approve of shouting speakers down, followed by Protestants, and Catholics (the two largest groups).

But religion may not be the driving force here

Dr. Burge thinks the driving force is mainly politics: “Atheists tend to be the most left leaning, followed by agnostics and so on. Then, LDS are more right leaning and so are Catholics and Protestants. So, this isn’t really about religion, it’s more about politics.”

Also. students from minority backgrounds or other minority positions were more likely to support shouting speakers down, Burge notes: “The ‘majority’ identity is more apt to protect free speech than the minoritized positions. A white, straight, cisgender person is the most protective of someone’s right to give a lecture on campus. Anyone who doesn’t fit into that mold is less supportive.”

It could have a lot to do with the question of whether one feels personally threatened by things others say.

Still, there can be no achievements in arts or progress in science without free and open discussion. And these choices are being made every day.