Louisiana State University System President William Tate IV, on the eve of a change in gubernatorial administrations to one which he doesn’t see eye-to-eye, is saying the right things. Still, he needs to put his money where his mouth is on others.

With the cocoon in which higher education exists catching out some prominent university leaders recently over their schools’ reactions to anti-Semitic activities, Tate has avoided any such problems with a very sensible attitude that should be made official policy at all Louisiana public institutions: the Kalven Principle of university neutrality regarding public issues. Recently, he spoke to his faculty members at the Louisiana State University campus about how he’ll not comment on political controversies but then try to defend faculty and student commentary.

It shows he’s come a long way from almost three decades ago when his academic publications complained about how math education, an allegedly white-created/“Eurocentric” pedagogical environment, stultified and misjudged black children’s learning, as well as missed opportunities to become an agent of social change. With a woke worldview dimly looked upon by incoming governor Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry, in his over two years leading the system Tate hasn’t publicly articulated an opinion for any agenda related to his past published views or any others, including his silence over a measure that failed this year in the Legislature for a report about “diversity, equity, and inclusion” efforts in state higher education criticized by two other system heads.

But Tate’s defense of free expression and inquiry is in part only lip service because of LSU’s uneven record in fulfilling that, even today. That’s the conclusion gleaned from the leading interest group defending free expression in academia, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Annually it evaluates and ranks larger institutions for their adherence to principles maximizing constitutional free expression, derived by media reports, active litigation, and student surveys.

The 2024 report gives LSU a dismal below average score putting it 140^th, worse than more than half of the field. There are bright spots, ranking 29^th for speaker tolerance and credits Tate’s administration by ranking it 27^th for student perception of administrator support of free speech. But students also rank the school lowly on their comfort in expressing views in class, in assignments, and to other students and faculty members, at 238^th, and even lower at 240^th for perceptions about their ability to discuss controversial matters on campus.

Yet perhaps the most disappointing are several expression policies that, depending upon application, violate constitutional speech protections, and one that is unambiguously facially unconstitutional. That one, which deals with prohibitions against electronic dissemination of “material that is defamatory, obscene, fraudulent, harassing (including uninvited amorous or sexual messages), threatening, incites violence, or contains slurs, epithets, or anything that may be reasonably construed as harassment or disparagement based on race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, or religion or to access, send, receive, or solicit sexually oriented messages or images or any other communication prohibited by law or other University directive,” sequesters LSU along with a minority of other public institutions with such restrictive speech codes.

This actually marks an improvement for LSU, which three years ago ranked second-from-last among the largest and most prominent institutions with largely the same strengths and weaknesses. And, FIRE lauds LSU for the system adopting a measure relating to the Kalven Principle, the Chicago Statement of Free Speech (something the Legislature required all systems to do in principle five years ago) that emphasizes robust freedom of expression standards at institutions of higher learning, although aspects of its speech code that intertwines among university and system policy statements and permanent memoranda certainly contradicts that.

With Landry as governor and not keen about politicization within academia and especially infused into instruction, Tate and other system leaders will have to toe the line as the new governor gradually through his appointment powers reshapes the various governing boards, as well as the Board of Regents. He, and they, can start by making constitutional the expression policies of the schools in their systems consistent with the Chicago Statement – among state schools with at least 10,000 students enrolled only McNeese State receives an all-clear grade from FIRE – as part of a broader effort to ensure robust discussion takes place without institutions favoring certain viewpoints that subverts their academic missions by replacing that with indoctrination.