However, recent polls regarding support for free speech make me think it’s not an anomaly. Pew has some troubling data here especially regarding support for violence against speakers.
I’m glad someone is tracking it now, regardless.
"This original database only recorded attempts to disinvite speakers from speaking at campus events. FIRE announced the expanded Campus Deplatforming database on February 8, 2024, and detailed how the expanded database now includes records of attempts to cancel performances (e.g., comedy shows, plays), art exhibits, or film screenings, in addition to speaker disinvitation attempts"
How much of the recent change is due to that expanded coverage?
I tried to download the data, but got a "Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: a.has is not a function" in Firefox. I can see though that the first few entries include a staged reading of a play, an artistic work on display, and Night of Drag fundraiser, so I know it's showing the expanded coverage.
I also can't figure out how to search the data. How many times is Kissinger in the database?
Does it include, for example, https://nyunews.com/2018/10/16/10-17-news-kissinger/ from 2018? ("Once it was made public that he would be a guest at the Stern speaker series, “In Conversation with Lord Mervyn King,” over a dozen student groups organized a protest against him titled “No War Criminals at NYU” and wrote a letter calling on the university to cancel the event.")
I have a really tough time with any "database" which offers downloading and search, but where both are broken (at least for me), making spot-checking very difficult.
Before social media, these sorts of things would be reported in the school and perhaps also local newspapers. We know this because we've read about the anti-war protests in the 1960s and 1970s. I know this, because I went to college ca. 1990 and these happened.
But gathering this data would require expensive and slow scholarly effort.
Are you sure it was Pew? https://nypost.com/2026/09/21/us-news/record-number-of-us-co... says it was a FIRE, and I gotta say I'm not impressed with them so far.
Going back to your suggestion that this may be an "early signal for what future politics may look like." I remind you that we used to have firebombings at colleges (examples, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing , https://www.nytimes.com/1969/11/12/archives/firebomb-set-off... and https://las.illinois.edu/news/2021-07-13/fire-protest-braver...), as part of the protests against Vietnam. How well did those protests predict the future?
Also a great question about Kissinger.
> Before social media, these sorts of things would be reported in the school and perhaps also local newspapers.
Actual disinvitations, yes, but I imagine that it would have been harder to find examples of unsuccessful pressure. Not everything makes into the paper, depending on who the editor is, and an unsuccessful pressure campaign may not be considered a real story. I don’t see how that past data could even be collected now in a convincing way.
> Are you sure it was Pew?
I think you’re right, I have also read the FIRE article and I may have confused it with an earlier poll from Pew about political violence, along with a more recent one about free speech and the media. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/23/americans... https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2026/09/15/americans-...
With regards to past violence, I would say that the early instances were indicative of the later trend. But obviously not every trend continues forever (most don’t). I don’t think it’s something to panic over, but it shouldn’t be ignored.
I read the methodology and wasn't convinced that the collection isn't biased by the marketing push for awareness of FIRE's mission, or by changing methods in data collection.
Their graphs, for example, don't even show error bars, which makes it impossible to determine if the trend they report is meaningful or random noise.
Regarding old campus newspapers, part of the "expensive and slow scholarly effort" means also reading the followup papers to see if there is information about a meeting being held or canceled, and if there isn't, include that in the statistics collection.
I suspect that the data collection will improve from this point forward if they commit to this series. As I said, I don’t really think that it’s feasible to get convincing data on this particular issue from the past, even if you mine the newspapers and whatever fossilized meeting schedules can be extracted from the archives. You could craft a narrative around whatever you find, but I don’t think I’d put much stock in it, whichever way it goes.
As I said earlier, I’m just happy someone is collecting this data now moving forward. I think it’s an important indicator, and definitely something to watch in the future.
"If they commit to this series"? You know their data starts in 1998. How long until you think they are committed?
If there are no error estimates, how can you even tell if it's an important indicator upward or downwards?
Ok, so database search does seem to work for me at least. I found a 2020 Kissinger cancellation but not the 2018 one. I am curious about its absence. There was only one NYU issue recorded that year. Looks like you might have found a missing data point.
Anyway, if they stick with the current methodology until 2030, I’ll say that’s a solid start. That’s 15 years since 2015, which is a reasonable arbitrary year past which the effects of modern social media would be in play. Trends should be very clear at that point, and data collection methods shouldn’t be too different from the start of that period.
As for why I respect their reporting, I read some about their methodology in the past, when I first started following them, and I also have read criticism of them, which I did not find compelling. I don’t generally dig into every little detail of it because I have trusted sources who trust them, and that’s how you generally find your way in a world with too much data and too little time. Regardless, although they are imperfect (that missing data point!), they seem to be mostly thorough, and reading through the methodology PDF it looks like a good overall approach.
That, combined with the lack of error bars (with estimates for possible increased signal sensitivity in their collection method), and the fact they changed methodology while their reports imply an unchanged methodology, does not lead me to the same conclusion you've reached.