During Georgetown’s May 2026 Senior Convocation, 30 graduating students walked out of the ceremony during Interim President Robert Groves’ Speech to protest the university’s policies on workers’ rights, immigration, and refusal to divest from Israel.
Alumna Anna Broderick (SFS ’26), a previous student organizer with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and member of Georgetown’s Coalition for Workers’ Rights (GCWR), was among those protesting. Broderick felt that while the university allowed the protest, they neither adequately protected protesting students nor acted on their demands.
“Instead, university administration stood and watched as students were physically escorted out by security and then verbally assaulted by zionist and fascist members of the audience,” Broderick wrote in a statement to the Voice. “One of my classmates was spit on by an audience member and multiple students were threatened with violence.”
Yet, when the Foundation for Individuals and Expression (FIRE) released their annual college free speech rankings, on Sept. 9, they cited Georgetown’s handling of the walkout as positively contributing to the university’s improved national standing.
This year, Georgetown rose 12 places in FIRE’s rankings to 117th out of 261 universities. Its overall grade also rose from an F in 2025 (on a scale from A-F) to a D-, equivalent to a numerical score of 61/100. The report found a slight increase in students’ political tolerance and comfort expressing their views, alongside a decline in students who felt supported by the administration.
To determine each university’s annual ranking, FIRE considers student survey data and free speech controversies that have occurred on campus. FIRE partners with College Pulse, an organization that conducts surveys of college students, to ensure a fair student sample when collecting responses. When citing cases for a university’s rankings, FIRE considers cases categorized as: “Scholars under fire,” “Students under fire,” and “deplatforming”.
FIRE cited five speech controversies that impacted Georgetown’s overall score, including the 2026 Convocation Walkout.
Broderick mentioned that her experience as a student activist at Georgetown did not align with FIRE’s characterization of the university’s approach to free speech.
“Georgetown takes pride in fostering free speech, but the administration allows students to be verbally and physically harassed for demonstrating exactly that,” Broderick wrote. “This isn’t pride, it’s contempt and it betrays the university’s alleged values in fear of its own students’ message.”
Broderick pointed to policies such as the amplified sound ban and mask ban as evidence that, in her view, FIRE does not fully capture restrictions on student speech.
“Georgetown is proud of its commitment to bipartisan discussion, but student activism here is not considered a meaningful application of free speech,” Broderick wrote. “When students raise awareness about injustices on campus and call for change, Georgetown is willing to completely ignore or silence its students’ voices.”
Broderick also said that the university “is not afraid to platform any kind of rhetoric, including hate speech,” referencing the campus visit of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and a 2024 panel with members of the Israel Defense Forces hosted by the Georgetown Israel Alliance and Jewish Life.
“Georgetown is committed to ensuring that all members of our community have a safe and welcoming place to learn and receive the support they need to do so,” a University Spokesperson wrote in a statement to the Voice. “While members of our community exercise freedom of speech, we work towards a living learning community that is free of bias and geared toward thoughtful, respectful dialogue.”
Where does Georgetown draw the line?
While FIRE viewed Georgetown’s handling of the convocation walkout positively, another campus controversy had the opposite effect on the university’s score.
FIRE cited the now-deleted Islamaphobic X post from the Georgetown College Republicans (GUCR) as a controversy that lowered the university’s ranking.
After GUCR’s post, the university announced that they were launching an investigation into the post and stated that they “condemn this language, which is deeply inconsistent with Georgetown University’s values.”
In a March 2026 letter addressed to Interim President Robert Groves from Garrett Gravely, the program counsel for the Campus Rights Advocacy department of FIRE, Gravely argued that the university investigation conflicted with Georgetown’s Speech and Expression Policy, which states that the university will not “insulate individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive.”
“We request a substantive response to this letter no later than the close of business on April 6, confirming that Georgetown will promptly end its review of GUCR’s protected expression and refrain from imposing any disciplinary sanctions on the group,” Gravely wrote.
In his letter, Gravely defended GUCR writing that their deletion of the original tweet and the clarification of their statement posted afterwards, was a by-product of effective criticism, what he felt was “the remedy to offensive expression that the First Amendment prefers to censorship.”
The University did not confirm to the Voice whether or not they responded to Gravely’s letter.
Despite identifying itself as a bipartisan organization, FIRE has continually been criticized for its links to conservative organizations, including providing funding to a Turning Point USA (TPUSA) Student Action Summit, hosted at President Trump’s private Florida beach club, Mar-a-Lago in December 2017. The organization has denied any partisan affiliations, stating that they advocate for collegiate free speech expression, regardless of political ideology.
Connor Murnane, FIRE’s Campus Advocacy Chief of Staff, said that due to the university’s investigation, FIRE felt that Georgetown was not adhering to their policy in this case.
“Some may find it offensive, but it’s protected political speech,” Murnane said. It doesn’t cross any of the boundaries of protected expression.”
For years, FIRE has been involved in the debate over whether hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment generally does not recognize an exception for “hate speech,” though certain speech can fall outside constitutional protection if the claim incites violence to another individual. However, as non-state actors, private universities do not have to follow any federally constitutional free speech policies, including exceptions to hate speech.
Murnane further clarified FIRE’s intention behind their letter, explaining that they would need to establish that the expression met its standard for harassment before imposing discipline.
“In that one instance [muslim students] may have felt targeted, but it is up to Georgetown to prove that it meets the harassment standard. But from one off social media post, there’s no hate speech exception,” he said.
Aya Ahmad (SFS ’27), the president of the Muslim Student Association, said that GUCR’s response did not erase the Islamaphobic rhetoric’s impact on Muslim students.
“I’m frankly not sure what they intended by posting that,” Ahmad wrote in a statement to the Voice. “Replacing a baseless statement about an entire religious group with an equally false and damaging claim about their faith itself is not in any way an explanation.”
Despite acknowledging the harm to Muslim students caused by GUCR’s tweet, Ahmad also emphasized the importance of protecting speech with which students disagree.
“It is hurtful to hear offensive comments, but we also recognize the overwhelming importance of maintaining an environment of free speech,” Ahmad wrote. “Members of our own community have been targeted for speaking out against the genocide in Gaza, and we know how critical it is for ideas to be heard even when they are unpopular.”
The University maintained their commitment to protecting students fundamental rights to free expression and dialogue, under their Speech and Expression policy.
“We respect the rights of members of our community to express their personal views and are committed to maintaining the values of academic freedom and serving as a forum for the free exchange of ideas, even when those ideas may be controversial and objectionable to some,” the University spokesperson wrote.
Professor Jason Brennan, a member of the Free Speech and Expression committee composed of students and faculty members who advises the Vice President for Student Affairs on matters relating to speech and expression, mentioned that the university should “pay more attention” to offering a clear guidance on how they protect students from harassment versus offensive ideas. Brennan further stated that FIRE’s letter reveals a “genuine institutional problem” if all “offensive statements” are subjected to an investigation into harassment that may “impose costs and can deter speech.”
“I also don’t think Georgetown has to choose between protecting speech and making Muslim students—or any other group—feel welcome,” Brennan said. “The university can condemn a statement, faculty and students can criticize it, and the university can support students affected by it without treating protected expression as misconduct.”
Despite launching an investigation into the posts, Georgetown has allowed GUCR to retain access to university benefits.
Broderick felt disturbed by the group’s continued presence on campus, highlighting what she saw as a disconnect between the university’s investigation and its response in practice.
“[GUCR] were allowed to table at CAB Fair with other clubs this year and they have been able to proceed as though nothing has happened,” Broderick wrote. “Neither the individuals responsible nor the club itself have faced any repercussions for their actions, despite both still being on campus.”
The controversy has continued to shape tensions between GUCR and other campus groups.
On Sept. 2, GUCR joined the Mass Deportation Coalition, a national coalition of conservative groups supporting the Trump administration’s efforts to expand mass deportation operations.
“After GUCR’s absolutely appalling decision to join the Mass Deportation Coalition—a group intended to scare international students and noncitizens into silence—I find it quite ironic that FIRE chose to focus on the supposed censorship that GUCR is facing,” Ahamd wrote.
GUCR did not respond to the Voice’s request for comment in time for publication.
“I’m also disappointed that Georgetown did not immediately denounce GUCR’s decision,” Ahmad wrote. “Both Islam and Christianity teach us to treat immigrants as ourselves, so as a Muslim, I want the university to condemn this attack on the immigrant community in the same terms that they condemned the Islamophobic post last March.”
Self-censorship on campus
Aside from commenting on the handling of speech controversies, FIRE’s report also revealed how these controversies affected students’ perceptions of the free speech climate on campus.
According to FIRE’s survey, around 43% of Georgetown respondents said that they self-censor at least once or twice a month during their time on campus.
When looking at the university’s report, Murnane said that this was one of the statistics which struck him the most because of students’ explanations for their answers.
“A lot of students responded with ‘I don’t want to start an argument, I don’t want people to get super defensive,” Murnane said. “So [students are] looking at speech and the intellectual environment and the debate and discourse that you’re supposed to experience as a burden that they want to avoid when they’re on campus and that worries me.”
Both Ahmad and Broderick said that they believed that self-censorship could also be connected to the ongoing legal battle between Georgetown Post-doctoral fellow Dr. Badar Khan Suri and the Trump Administration.
The Department of Homeland Security detained Khan Suri outside his home in March 2025 while residing in the U.S. legally on a J-1 exchange visa. After spending 58 days in ICE detention, federal Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles ruled that Khan Suri should be released on bond. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that he should remain out of detention while his case proceeds.
Since his detention, Georgetown students have rallied around Khan Suri, organizing teach-in events and testifying on his behalf during his recent immigrant hearing.
In their report, FIRE cited the university’s response to Khan Suri’s detainment as another case which positively impacted Georgetown’s rankings.
“The university has expressed concern over Khan Suri’s detention and emphasized its commitment to supporting its community members and upholding academic freedom,” FIRE wrote in their explanation of the case. “Notably, over 130 Jewish students, faculty, staff, and alumni from the university signed a public letter condemning Khan Suri’s detention.”
Ahmad characterized Khan Suri’s prosecution in response to his support of Palestine as “incredibly chilling.” She also argued that “Georgetown can make its stance on free speech much stronger by actively contributing to his legal fund.”
After Khan Suri’s detainment, both Ahamd and Broderick said Khan Suri’s case contributed to broader self-censorship among non-US citizens at Georgetown.
“The ripple effects from his arrest were immediate: I suddenly started hearing from so many more international students and non-citizens who were worried that they would be targeted next,” Ahmad wrote. “There are so many students, Muslim or not, who are afraid that anything they say will be used to target them politically.”
Broderick echoed similar sentiments to Ahmad.
“I’ve met grad students and professors who feel pressure to censor themselves, even when directly addressing topical issues in the classroom, out of fear of retaliation,” Broderick wrote.
Still, Broderick feels that Georgetown administration has a responsibility for addressing feelings of fear surrounding speech expression among the student body.
“Self-censorship becoming a norm at Georgetown is a horrible result that could be avoided if the university provided proper support to community members targeted for their beliefs,” Broderick wrote.
The Georgetown chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also expressed concern that the amount of students reporting self-censorship could limit opportunities for students to test and refine their beliefs through healthy discourse.
“For the university as a whole, a campus where 43% of students say they routinely hold back means a lot of the most interesting disagreements are happening in private group chats instead of classrooms and public forums – a real loss for a university whose core value proposition is supposed to be open, rigorous inquiry among equals,” Georgetown ACLU wrote in a statement to the Voice.
However, Khan Suri’s case is not the only recent controversy that has incited concerns about self-censorship among Georgetown members.
During the week of the one-year anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s death, advertisements for a Charlie Kirk look-alike event were shared on the anonymous students social media platform, Fizz. These posts garnered national media attention from outlets such as Fox News, sparking outrage from the National TPUSA chapter and conservative figures.
Brennan said the attention that the post received reflects “the environment students now inhabit.”
“A student who says something provocative, offensive, or simply foolish on a campus social-media platform has to contemplate the possibility that another student will package it for a national political audience and that the resulting controversy may vastly exceed the significance of the original remark.” Brennan wrote in a statement to the Voice.
Brennan included that although the university did not directly censor these attempts to joke about an assasination, the reactions from those outside the community could have a “chilling effect” on student speech going forward.
“If students come to believe that every ill-judged joke or controversial remark might become national news, some perfectly reasonable response is to become more guarded about what they say,” Brennan wrote.
Calls for clearer protections
As Georgetown grapples with the implications of FIRE’s report, many interviewees proposed several ways in which the university and students could strengthen protections for campus speech.
To combat repression, Murnane encouraged students to “challenge tough ideas and schedule opposing programming,” while also calling on Georgetown to ensure that students have avenues to safely express their opinions.
“Because at the end of the day, they lead by example and if they can’t set the boundary line in the sand and can’t articulate why these principles matter, then how are students supposed to know?” Murnane asked.
Similarly Brennan said that Georgetown needs to make their stance on free speech “unusually clear before controversies occur” to avoid clarifying procedures after disputes occur.
“Students should know that they are free to protest a speaker vigorously, for example, while also understanding where protest becomes disruption,” Brennan said. “Student organizations should know what protections they have when hosting controversial events.”
Georgetown ACLU also encouraged student organizations to participate in dialogue with other organizations who hold opposite ideologies to foster productive dialogue.
“For student groups, including ours, we think that modeling disagreement fairly matters; hosting or co-hosting events across ideological lines, and being visibly willing to consider views we may disagree with, shows students that discourse can survive real disagreement without anyone getting punished for it,” the Georgetown ACLU board wrote.
As Georgetown gets ready to officially inaugurate Eduardo M. Penalver as the 49th president of the university on Oct. 9, Broderick said that she hopes to see the free speech climate improve on campus under new leadership.
“With the new president, we don’t know exactly what this climate will look like, but Peñalver—who prides himself on being open to hearing students out—has an obligation to create a truly safer climate than his predecessors’ and to follow through with his presently hollow commitment to hearing students out,” Broderick wrote.
