ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Students' motives for restricting academic freedom: Viewpoint discrimination and prosocial concerns.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We advance the understanding of so-called "cancel culture" at the university by presenting the results of three survey experiments among university students. Designed in an "adversarial collaboration" among researchers with competing perspectives, these experiments disentangle whether students' preferences for curtailing academic freedom are based on viewpoint discrimination, professional academic standards, or prosocial concerns. Our findings show that a substantive share of university students support viewpoint-based restrictions on academic discourse. While they also apply academic and prosocial criteria, they apply them more strongly to conservative viewpoints. The results further show that conservative statements are perceived as causing more social harm. However, prosocial concerns do not fully explain the higher demand for ideological viewpoint discrimination. These results are important because they can inform the debate about universities as ideological spaces-a view often invoked in recent government-led attacks on academic freedom.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.