The University of Alaska Anchorage ranks near the very bottom of the pack in a new national survey of campus free expression.
In the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings released by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and College Pulse, UAA placed 197th out of 257 four-year colleges and universities, with an overall score of 54.3 out of 100 and a speech climate grade of F. The school received a “red light” rating for policies FIRE says clearly and substantially restrict student speech.
FIRE, a nonpartisan nonprofit that defends free speech and academic freedom, has produced the rankings annually since 2020. The 2026 edition drew on surveys of 68,510 undergraduates at 257 schools conducted between January and June 2025, plus reviews of campus speech codes and tracked incidents in which speakers, faculty, or students faced punishment or disinvitation for controversial views. Scores combine student perceptions, written policies, and how administrations handle controversies.
Nationally, the average score was 58.63, with more than 160 schools receiving an F. Only 11 earned a C or better.
UAA had some bright spots in the FIRE report, ranking in the top 25 schools for “Comfort Expressing Ideas,” “Disruptive Conduct,” and “Administrative Support.” The FIRE report also recorded zero speech controversies — no deplatformings and no cases of scholars or students “under fire” at UAA. The report surveyed about 104 UAA students.
Those positives, however, do not tell the whole story. UAA ranked in the bottom 50 for “Political Tolerance,” a measure of whether students would welcome controversial speakers from across the spectrum. A total of 43% of students said they had self-censored on campus at least once or twice a month. Another 61% said shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking was acceptable at least in rare cases, and 23% said using violence to stop someone from speaking was acceptable at least in rare cases. Those last two figures track a national trend: FIRE found record-high student acceptance of shout-downs, blocking event access, and violence as tools to silence speech.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
The rankings report comes as campus speech remains a cultural flashpoint across the nation. FIRE reports that more than half of students nationwide say the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is difficult to discuss openly. Abortion, transgenderism, and the 2024 presidential election also rank high among taboo topics.
Additionally, a majority of students, for the first time in the survey’s history, opposed allowing any of six hypothetical controversial speakers — three described as conservative and three as liberal — onto campus. Acceptance of illiberal protest tactics rose.
Given that public universities such as UAA operate under the First Amendment, FIRE argues that “red light” codes — policies that, for example, overly restrict “harassment,” “bias,” or protest — chill protected speech even when administrators do not enforce them in high-profile cases. The organization says UAA could climb quickly by revising those codes to at least a “yellow light” rating and by formally endorsing the Chicago Statement, which affirms that universities should not suppress ideas because they are offensive or unpopular.
Overall, the FIRE report describes UAA as a campus where student self-censorship remains common and a sizable minority treats disruption, and even violence, as acceptable responses to speech they dislike.
5 Comments
That’s just like Juneau, AK.
I bet today’s UA students will give sneer look at another student they seen reading Charlie Kirk’s book Stop in the Name of God or JD Vance book Finding my way back to Faith.
I am currently a UAF student who has taken several classes from UAA. The Alaskan university system is incredibly biased towards liberals. Textbooks will compare belief in Christianity to mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and will go out of their way to bash Trump and his polices. Marxist philosophies are regularly taught and disguised as critical interpretations (such as critical race theory). There is no ideological diversity within the UA system. For example, every single communication class that I have taken has included a communication acknowledgement that we are required to read at the beginning of the class. It states, “We recognize and make space for the communication norms and values of the Indigenous People and their ancestors who care for these lands. Although we acknowledge the communication norms we know and practice are based in white supremacy and western knowledge systems that uphold white supremacy, we invite learners to share with us their language, Elder wisdom, and communication practices so that we may grow together as a community”. This “communication acknowledgement” was posted by the chair of communication department as well as several of other communication teachers. It’s not just the communication department. Every single department in UA system except for perhaps economics is inundated with an extreme liberal bias. For example, in the first chapter of one of my political science textbooks, Donald Trump was described as having a “narcissistic, aggressive, and impulsive disposition”. This was after including his 2016 election win in a list of distressing upheavals in the world order including North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons. The only thing that I can say about the UA system is that teachers will not discriminate against students for political views. I have staunchly disagreed with my professors on many controversial issues, but have never been given a bad grade for holding unpopular opinions
You guys must be furious about the banning of the press from access to the White House and their coverage of the Executive Branch! Such a blatant violation of our constitution by the individual who is supposedly working for the people of the USA and took an oath to uphold and be faithful to the Constitution. What in his character would lead one to believe that he isn’t faithful. (3 x philandering divorcee, convicted of business fraud and assault may have been a clue) kind of seems like a person with a “narcissistic, aggressive, and impulsive disposition”. It might be time to kick him to curb and find an actual Republican. Save yourself and your Party, maybe even the country.
Mark, where does it state in the Constitution the President has to field questions from anyone? Where does is say in any founding documents the President must hold press conferences and then allow his speeches to be taken out of content? Besides, as you so easily misrepresented what actually took place, Trump didn’t ban anyone from their first amendment rights. The press can still cover the White House, just some not from within the White House. If you haven’t yet realized a large majority of the MSM is extremely biased, misrepresents, and flat out lies to the public, then why should anyone listen to you?
He used the term “ban” from accessing the WH. That office is owned by the people. It is not his. He is not obligated to do press. Absolutely. But he does not get to edit and determine coverage, even bias coverage. Please show me coverage from thiose orgs that is false? Bias is part of the package. As a former president said to the press upon leaving the job said “ You’re not supposed to be sycophants, you’re supposed to be skeptics. You’re supposed to ask me tough questions. You’re not supposed to be complimentary, but you’re supposed to cast a critical eye on folks who hold enormous power and make sure that we are accountable to the people who sent us here.
And you have done that. And you’ve done it, for the most part, in ways that I could appreciate for fairness even if I didn’t always agree with your conclusions. “