(Picture credit Greg Brown)
The University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) is not among the universities evaluated in the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s (FIRE) newly released 2027 College Free Speech Rankings. But recent reports from UNK, findings from UNK’s own campus-climate survey, and troubling free-speech concerns from within the University of Nebraska (NU) System suggest there is plenty of smoke surrounding self-censorship at UNK.
Whether there is actually a fire, and particularly whether that fire disproportionately discourages conservative viewpoints, is a question worth taking more seriously than it was over the summer by the UNK administration.
The smoke was visible years ago.
In 2021, the University of Nebraska conducted a systemwide campus-climate survey of students, faculty and staff. One question asked students whether “the climate on my campus prevents some people from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.”
One-third of UNK students agreed.
Students were also asked whether they felt “very comfortable sharing ideas in class that are probably only held by a small number of students.” Fewer than half (47%) agreed. Concerns were not limited to students. Among UNK faculty and staff, 43% did not affirm that the university would “do the right thing” when confronted with questions of ethics and integrity, while 39% did not affirm confidence that everyone was treated fairly regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, or other characteristics.
These results did not establish that conservatives were being silenced, nor were the faculty and staff questions specifically about political expression. They did, however, reveal concerns about self-censorship among students and broader concerns about institutional trust and fairness among employees, years before the current controversy.
Those concerns became much more specific in 2026.
In April, The Plains Sentinel reported that current and former UNK faculty described an environment in which conservatives and Christians feared professional repercussions for expressing their views. Current professors reportedly declined to be identified because of fear of retaliation. Students likewise described keeping political views to themselves in class.
A subsequent report contained more specific allegations. Two students described an incident in which a professor, angered by Gov. Jim Pillen’s criticism of a UNK faculty training module concerning transgender students, allegedly told students that those who disagreed with his views should not be teachers or around children. One student also alleged that the professor said older white men should not be allowed to vote. A second student did not recall the exact wording of that statement but corroborated the broader account that students who questioned the necessity of the transgender-related faculty training were treated derisively because of their views.
More important to the broader campus-climate question was what students said about their own behavior. One reported keeping political opinions private because professors made their political views clear. Another explained, “I don’t try to speak my mind. It’s not that I can’t, but I choose not to.” The student’s conclusion was telling: “It’s not worth the risk.”
Taken together, The Plains Sentinel reports clearly demonstrate concerns among some UNK faculty and students about a campus climate that they believe does not facilitate the open expression of conservative thoughts and values. That does not prove their perceptions are correct or that UNK systematically discriminates against conservatives. But the concern being raised was fairly straightforward: Do people with unpopular viewpoints feel free to express them?
The concerns soon attracted attention beyond campus. State Sen. Dave Murman, chair of the Legislature’s Education Committee, told The Plains Sentinel that he had spoken with the chancellor several times and believed UNK could be taking its internal review “more seriously.” U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts also contacted Chancellor Neal Schnoor about the allegations. More significantly for the free-speech question, FIRE itself weighed in.
While encouraged by UNK’s public statements supporting free expression, FIRE expressed concern about university processes that could inhibit speech, particularly anonymous reporting systems. FIRE urged UNK to remain mindful of First Amendment protections for faculty and students “who may disagree with the popular campus orthodoxy.”
UNK investigated and concluded that it “does not have a campus climate that is hostile to Christians or conservatives.” But look closely at how the university reached that conclusion. Very few students, faculty and a student organization were asked by the UNK Chief Compliance Officer whether they had experienced “intimidation or academic or employment consequences because of their beliefs.” According to UNK, no one provided such an example or evidence.
That answers one important question. It does not answer the entire question raised by the allegations.
If I were grading it as an essay response, it would not receive a passing grade; not because the answer given was necessarily wrong, but because the question was not fully answered.
The concern was not merely whether conservatives had already been punished. It was whether students and faculty perceived the environment as sufficiently hostile that they avoided expressing certain views in the first place. Ironically, people who successfully avoid consequences by remaining silent will have no disciplinary action, poor grade, denied promotion or other tangible retaliation to report.
Self-censorship can make an intolerant campus appear tolerant.
That is precisely why FIRE measures more than formal punishment in its College Free Speech Rankings. FIRE and College Pulse surveyed nearly 63,000 students for the 2027 rankings, examining such factors as comfort expressing ideas, self-censorship, openness, political tolerance and perceived administrative support for speech.
FIRE did not survey UNK. It did survey 392 students at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. UNL received a D- speech-climate grade and ranked 102nd of 261 institutions. It ranked in the bottom 50 nationally for “Openness,” and 51% of UNL students reported self-censoring on campus at least once or twice a month.
UNL’s results cannot be directly assigned to UNK. But the comparison should not be dismissed either. UNL and UNK are both campuses within the same University of Nebraska System, governed by the same Board of Regents and system president. More importantly, the University’s own 2021 survey found the same general concerns at both campuses, although they were somewhat more pronounced at UNL.
So perhaps the question should not be considered settled.
To really determine if the campus climate is intolerant of conservative viewpoints, and indeed whether there is a climate of self-censorship on campus, UNK should conduct a new anonymous campus-wide survey modeled on FIRE’s methodology. Ask students and faculty whether they self-censor, what subjects they hesitate to discuss, whether political orientation affects their willingness to speak, and what consequences they fear. Ask the same questions of conservatives, liberals and everyone in between.
UNK’s investigation found no evidence that people had suffered tangible consequences for conservative or Christian beliefs. That is reassuring.
But where there is this much smoke, it seems premature to declare that there is no fire. The measure of intellectual freedom is not merely whether people have been punished for speaking. It is whether they believe they are genuinely free to speak in the first place.
— Greg Brown is a Professor in the department of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences at the University of Nebraska at Kearney, where has been a faculty member since 2004.