Dialogue Vanderbilt hosted a lunchtime conversation on Jan. 14 with Greg Lukianoff, chief executive officer of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The talk discussed FIRE’s methodology for conducting its surveys, the position of cancel culture within debates regarding free speech and the conflict between regulating artificial intelligence and protecting First Amendment rights.
The talk was hosted by Dialogue Vanderbilt Student Advisory Board member and sophomore Yotam Peer, who said DV chose to invite Lukianoff because they saw him to be well-suited to discuss the importance and impacts of free speech given his role as the CEO of FIRE and his expertise on the topic.
“As a free speech advocate, [Lukianoff] is an instrumental figure in advocacy for free speech, so Dialogue Vanderbilt, built on the premise of encouraging and fostering dialogue — and free speech within that — thought that if anyone should come to a Dialogue Vanderbilt event, Greg Lukianoff is the kind of person that [should],” Peer said.
Lukianoff began the discussion by explaining why he chose to work for FIRE. He discussed his upbringing in a majority-immigrant community within Connecticut, where many families had fled from authoritarian governments and had an understanding of the importance of free speech.
“I was also growing up in the 1980s and 90s, a time when both free speech law and free speech culture in the United States were actually on the rise,” Lukianoff said. “For most of my life, it was a story of First Amendment freedom of speech getting more protected and free speech getting greater appreciation [among] a larger society.”
Lukianoff began as the first legal director for FIRE in 2001 and later became its president in 2006, although he said he was cautious to accept the new role.
“I was very hesitant to become president because I couldn’t imagine a better job than being the legal director of a First Amendment organization,” Lukianoff said. “That was kind of my dream job, but I am glad I decided to take the next step.”
Last September, FIRE released its 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, in which Vanderbilt was ranked No. 140. The results were collected via an online survey and reflected the perceptions and experiences of college students regarding free speech on their campuses. Peer asked Lukianoff to elaborate on FIRE’s methodology when conducting the surveys.
“We want to know things like: ‘Do you think the administration would have your back if you got in trouble for free speech?’ ‘Do you think violence is acceptable against freedom of speech?’ ‘Do you feel free to speak around your professors or your fellow students?’” Lukianoff said. “That was a big part of the evaluation [and] how you do on the ranking.”
Lukianoff stated that although private schools tend to do worse than large public schools on FIRE’s rankings, he sees potential for Vanderbilt’s ranking to rise. He also expressed that his personal beliefs do not have any influence on the rankings.
“Now, when I talk to university presidents, the first thing I have to say is, ‘I have no effect on your score; your score is produced by the numbers,’” Lukianoff said. “But I have a feeling [Vanderbilt] is going to do better next year for a variety of reasons.”
Peer then asked Lukianoff to elaborate on his belief that a Texas law, which sets obligations for companies and developers around AI, is infringing on the right to free speech. Lukianoff said he believes policies that try to limit AI are effectively limiting the production of knowledge, and those who say a law is about anti-discrimination need to recognize that it can also impact speech.
“People constantly need to be reminded that freedom of speech and the production of knowledge are always, and have always been, bound together as practically the same thing on multiple levels,” Lukianoff said.
As the topic transitioned back to free speech on campuses, Lukianoff said he believes students today face “conformity-inducing pressures” that discourage them from speaking out and disagreeing with the status quo. Lukianoff added that there seem to be “litmus tests” that determine whether people with certain views can go to college.
“That’s one of the reasons why we oppose DEI statements. Diversity, equity [and] inclusion statements sound very nice, but there is literally no way to make them things that are not ultimately political litmus tests,” Lukianoff said. “Because if someone comes up and says, ‘I actually disagree with this on principle,’ [they’re] not getting in, so actual iconoclastic thinkers wouldn’t make it through this process.”
Lukianoff also said he believes people would be more encouraged to speak up if they knew they would not be “canceled” because of their views. Lukianoff cited information from a 2023 report by FIRE about the effects of “cancel culture” on scholars and another on the views of university faculty on free expression. The Hustler was unable to independently verify Lukianoff’s claims.
“I always make the point that 62 Communist professors were fired under McCarthyism. More than 200 have been fired in the same period of time under cancel culture,” Lukianoff said. “And we know that’s actually a wild under-count because 1-in-6 professors say they’ve either been threatened with punishment or actually punished for their speech, whether it’s pedagogy, research or speech as a general citizen.”
To conclude his talk, Lukianoff shared that he feels optimistic about the future of free speech in higher education.
“I think the frustration with higher ed[ucation] as it currently exists has surfaced. I think the idea that it’s essentially an invulnerable industry has been shattered to a degree,” Lukianoff said. “People are thinking really hard on reforms that could potentially work and other ways of delivering education that are entirely new and smart, so I do see some opportunity for change.”
After the moderated talk, Lukianoff answered questions from the audience. First-year Michael Kozma asked Lukianoff to clarify whether cancel culture should still be considered free speech and thus be protected under the First Amendment. Lukianoff stated he sees cancel culture as “protected” speech but also as “illiberal” speech.
“There is no question [of whether] you can engage in cancel culture, but you need to push back on it because the biggest threat to human authenticity [and] creativity — even more so than the government — is actually the population itself,” Lukianoff said.
Following the event, Kozma wrote in a message to The Hustler that he disagrees with Lukianoff’s belief that cancel culture should be fought against.
“[Lukianoff] suggested that there should be a societal force stomping out cancel culture. But how is that any different than cancel culture itself?” Kozma said. “Just because speech is illiberal and disagreeable doesn’t mean it isn’t free speech. You cannot be a free-speech purist and work to stomp out a method of freedom of expression.”
Junior Imaad Muhawid, a member of the Dialogue Vanderbilt Student Advisory Board, asked Lukianoff during the Q&A to share how FIRE’s approach to defending free speech has changed as the social and political culture surrounding the right to free speech has shifted. Lukianoff responded that he believes views on many political issues have become more polarized among American citizens, which has made it more difficult to promote free speech.
“You have to, to some degree, get over bringing everyone along with you at this point. Not that a good First Amendment organization is going to make everyone happy, but you have to be comfortable with people from both sides of the aisle hating your guts at a level that I think is much more intense than it was 10 years ago,” Lukianoff said. “And you have to accept that there are some people who cannot be convinced because they think it’s actually a moral issue.”
Muhawid said after the talk that he was most “fascinated” by Lukianoff’s point that the right to free speech exists for people of all ideologies and is necessary to be able to produce authentic and original thought.
“What struck me most was his emphasis on free speech as a nonpartisan issue — a vital principle that transcends political divides,” Muhawid said in a message to The Hustler. “I think he captured it perfectly when he emphasized how freedom of speech is essential to the production of knowledge, and, therefore, it is crucial to understand what people really think rather than conform to societal norms.”