The academic world is losing its freedom

At universities, which until recently were considered temples of openness in the public eye, a silent form of censorship is increasingly taking hold—disguised behind phrases such as “safe environment” or “emotional harm.” Safety is becoming a universal pretext, and dialogue is often ended before a discussion even begins.

As Professor Scott Yenor of the Claremont Institute points out, American higher education is currently undergoing several revolutions—ideological, demographic, and institutional. After decades of gradual influence, the ideology of diversity has become the official religion of the academic milieu. Professors who disagree with it have trouble publishing, completing their doctoral dissertations, or finding employment.

In 2024, a university in Indiana canceled an appearance by conservative commentator Rich Lowry because his views allegedly endangered the “safety of the university community.” Similarly, a lecture by Olivia Krolczyk on gender ideology in Washington was disrupted, and some students even called for a rally to celebrate the trans community.

Similarly, a pro-life student group at the University of Manchester faced massive protests and a petition with tens of thousands of signatures. The lecture, which was to follow a few days later, was canceled because the speaker advocated for the nonviolent protection of life.

The report “The Current State of Free Speech in Higher Ed” painted a picture of the state of free speech at American universities against the backdrop of these and many other cases. According to the authors, more than 70 percent of students admit that they are afraid to openly express their opinions if they do not conform to the prevailing progressive opinion.

The current crisis of academic freedom is therefore not just a battle over words or lectures. It is a battle over the very meaning of the university itself. If the university is to remain a place of truth and not ideological indoctrination, it must choose to educate for wisdom, knowledge, and virtue.

Religious belief as hate speech

In 2024, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the extension of the list of criminal offenses in the EU to include “hate speech” in Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. Definitions of “hate speech” vary from country to country, and extending them to the Union level would mean centralizing legal competence in the area of freedom of expression. Sexual orientation or gender identity would then fall under the protection of the Union.

However, it should be added that EU resolutions are not legally binding but express the political position and conclusions of the EU institutions. If the proposal were to become law, it could also lead to sanctions for religious or moral statements.

To increase pressure on politicians, the European Parliament's Research Service has published a report entitled “Hate speech and hate crime: Time to act?”, in which it concludes that hate speech is on the rise. At the same time, it proposes the creation of minimum standards in this area for all Member States.

The European Commission recently presented a new strategy for the years 2026 to 2030, which aims to strengthen the protection of LGBT rights in the EU and can be seen as a further step towards ideological interference in the internal affairs of member states. Under the pretext of combating hatred, Brussels is attempting to extend its influence in sensitive cultural and ethical issues.

As the late Pope Benedict XVI warned in his book Benedict's Europe in the Crisis of Cultures, “soon it will no longer be possible to claim that homosexuality is an objective disorder in the design of human life.”

This is not an exaggerated claim. One example is the case of former Finnish Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen, who was taken to court for sharing a post in which she questioned why the Finnish Lutheran Church officially supports Finnish Pride. The accompanying photo contained Bible verses criticizing homosexual acts.

Diversity training

Both in the private and public sectors, there is growing pressure worldwide to complete mandatory courses or training on diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI). In these courses, employees and students learn how to react correctly, speak correctly, and, above all, think correctly.

According to the German law against discrimination, diversity training must be offered to all employees, and in practice, completing it is considered part of their job duties.

The UK, in turn, is increasing spending on diversity, equality, and inclusion training in the civil service as part of this trend. Individual ministries have admitted to spending more than £1 million of taxpayers' money on such training.

However, a study by Harvard Business School has shown that training of this kind has only a very limited effect. The result is usually a cautious atmosphere in which people are afraid to express their true opinions for fear of being labeled insensitive or toxic.

Many companies, including technology giants in the US, have already introduced internal “diversity scores.” Current data confirms that these indicators are increasingly linked to recruitment and career advancement. Companies use them to assess “progress” in terms of equality, but at the same time create a system in which professional success is measured by ideological conformity rather than ability.

When these indicators are linked to compensation and career advancement, ideological conformity becomes part of performance evaluation, whereby an employee's or student's characteristics are classified as “valuable” or “worthless” according to cultural standards rather than solely on the basis of their expertise. So it's not about the pursuit of true justice, but about formal obedience.

From tolerance to totality

The combination of these three levels—academic, legislative, and professional—creates a unified picture: the original value of tolerance is transformed into a system that does not evaluate the truthfulness of a statement, but rather its emotional impact and conformity to the norm.

As philosopher Karl Popper states in his work The Open Society and Its Enemies, “unlimited tolerance leads to the demise of tolerance. If we are infinitely tolerant even of the intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against their attacks, then the tolerant will be destroyed along with tolerance.”

Popper's paradox was originally intended to protect democratic society from the totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and communism. Today, however, this principle is being turned on its head and used not against those who seek to destroy freedom, but against those who have the courage to defend it.

Western culture, once rooted in the Christian concept of human dignity, is now trying to survive without those roots. But a tree that has cut off its roots cannot bear fruit for long.

“It is obvious that a false or vague understanding of freedom, which forms the basis of this culture, inevitably leads to contradictions and that its application leads to a restriction of freedom that the past generation could not even imagine,” wrote the aforementioned Pope Benedict XVI.

A society that speaks of empathy but forbids contradiction is transformed into a system in which truth is replaced by convenience and morality by dubious ideology. The boundless application of tolerance has become a new form of totality.