Members of the USC community seem hesitant, yet hopeful about the endurance of free speech and diversity of thought in the classroom. This is despite a seemingly dark time for human rights and democracy not just in the United States, but the world as a whole, according to Swerdlow.

This is due to many of President Donald Trump’s policies and tactics echoing those of authoritarian regimes, with the aim of controlling political and social narratives, along with controlling what can be spoken about, discussed by Steve Swerdlow, an associate professor of the practice of political science and international relations.

“I think this campaign against higher education that we’ve watched unfold since January 2025 presents extraordinary risks, in the funding or scientific research to agree to certain ideological constraints,” Swerdlow said. “Once again, that is a classic authoritarian tactic.”

One of the aspects in the campaign, Swerdlow talked about is the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, which was sent by the Trump administration to colleges nationwide, including USC. 

The compact required universities to freeze tuition for only American students for the next five years, required standardized testing, and required the school to define men and women only by their biological processes. Additionally, it prohibited universities from commenting on political situations in addition to other demands. The compact stated that if the universities did not accept the compact, the universities would forgo federal funding. 

In an Academic Senate meeting, faculty voiced their opposition to agreeing to the compact. It was an important victory from the perspective of the faculty and student body when the University committed to not follow the compact, even more so because an Undergraduate Student Government poll tallied that 93% said to reject the compact. Despite this, concerns about future pressure from the government on universities remain, as associate professor of history Aro Velmet reflected. 

“I believe that the University’s commitment to support students of all backgrounds and all statuses, [and] all citizenships is so incredibly, continually important,” Swerdlow said. “It is even more important than it has been in the past.” 

The removal of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from the University’s unifying values, as well as requiring cultural and affinity groups to explicitly state that events are open to all, represents changes within free speech guidelines that may have seeped into the classroom setting.

Arielle Cai, a junior majoring in psychology, said she felt both uncertain and hopeful regarding free speech at USC. 

“Everyone is trying to contribute to an environment [where] free speech is continuous and protected,” Cai said. “But there’s definitely a tendency to not speak up … because there might be a conflict in opinions and there is going to be a discussion on that which we might not want, or it might get us in trouble expressing a different opinion.” 

With concerns for constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, becoming evident throughout the U.S., university campuses are a frequent topic of conversation. Past campus protests regarding topics such as divestment from Israel and a free Palestine were also heavily under scrutiny; these events resulted in arrests and academic consequences. 

Cai highlighted that concerns around free speech on campus acutely impact international students’ experiences. As one herself, she feels it’s harder to speak on certain topics than non-international students. 

“I do feel like most of the ideas that are hidden or marginalized are from international students or minorities,” Cai said. “There’s a tendency that if we feel like we’re not going to be accepted, we won’t speak up.” 

Chase Gonzalez, a freshman majoring in business of cinematic arts, said he was optimistic about the University’s open dialogue and community. 

“What I like about USC in particular is that we’re all open to talking about our diverse thoughts and opinions, which is amazing,” Gonzalez said.

But not all spaces are equally free to have those hard conversations, according to Gonzalez, who said he often feels hesitant to share his opinions in large classrooms. Gonzalez said he feels some settings lack mutual cooperation and openness to understanding, and productive disagreements concerning politics are not always possible. 

“To be able to talk about [politics] openly, you have to have cooperation and understanding about that stuff,” Gonzalez said. “Especially nowadays, we have to be careful.”

Swerdlow specializes in international and domestic human rights, teaching courses at the University that educate his students on how international laws and human rights standards directly impact U.S. laws and vice versa. 

Swerdlow said he was concerned about the seeming backslide of human rights globally; however, he had high praise for the University’s commitment to its students, faculty, staff and its unifying values.

“I can’t speak for all faculty, but in my department there’s been no suggestion, no discussion about micromanaging content in classrooms, creating guidelines or guardrails,” Swerdlow said. “There has been a strong commitment to academic freedom.”

Student and faculty experiences with free speech on campus are not uniform. Identity, political leanings and specific settings in and out of the classroom contribute to a divided view on how such freedoms are enduring on campus, which is reflected in the confidence of Arielle Cai who believes there will be an increase in the expression of free speech over the next year compared to Chase Gonzalez’s reserved approach preferring to save these conversations for close friends and not the classroom setting. Nevertheless, there is some hope for the future and for the University committing to maintaining diverse perspectives in a time when they seem to be cast aside.

“Despite lots of turbulent times for this campus and for the world, I’ve consistently seen the students leading the way in a lot of freedom of thought and a lot of fearlessness,” Swerdlow said.