Last month, Davidson alumni Cynthia Huang ’25 and Hannah Fay ’25 filed a civil rights complaint with the Departments of Education and Justice. They allege that the college “biased treatment towards pro-Israel students” violated Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The two founders of Davidson’s Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter announced their complaint through The Daily Signal, a publication originally of the Heritage Foundation, turning what might have been an internal dispute into a national campaign against Davidson’s administration.
From their complaint, they urge the federal government to withhold all funding until Davidson “complies with federal law.” If that were to happen, Davidson could lose roughly $5 million in annual federal grants that have supported research in cancer, nuclear physics, and cybersecurity.
By turning to Washington, Huang and Fay abandoned the very principle they claim to defend—free expression. Their complaint isn’t about liberty anymore; it’s about inviting the federal government to decide what counts as free speech at Davidson.
The Grievances
The complaint centers on disciplinary sanctions the college imposed after YAF distributed pamphlets labeled “Islamophobic” and “harmful.” It also cites broader grievances, including delays in registering the group and approving speakers, and the removal of 1,195 Israeli flags placed to commemorate victims of October 7.
While some grievances are debatable, Davidson was wrong to attempt to punish YAF for engaging in explicitly political speech. The group’s pamphlets expressed their opinions on the Israel-Hamas war and were never forced upon any student. However disagreeable their content may have seemed, it did not obstruct access to campus spaces or threaten anyone’s safety. The college’s response reflects a troubling inconsistency with its stated commitment to open inquiry and helps explain its persistently low free-speech rating.
Nevertheless, this incident does not warrant federal intervention on our campus. Such interference exceeds the government’s proper authority and represents a misguided effort that will ultimately fail to achieve its supposed aim of restoring free speech in higher education.
A Misuse of Civil Rights
Huang and Fay’s invocation of Title VI and Title IX mirror the Trump administration’s charge in Harvard v. Department of Health and Human Services. Both allege that their respective institutions discriminated against particular ideological or ethnic groups—conservative and pro-Israel students in Davidson’s case, and Jewish students in Harvard’s.
Yet the two complaints differ in scope and substance. In Harvard v. HHS, recently rejected by a federal judge, the government argued that Harvard violated Title VI by tolerating antisemitism among faculty and student protests. Huang and Fay’s complaint, by contrast, claims ideological discrimination: that Davidson’s administration censored and punished pro-Israel expression rather than permitting hostility toward it.
This distinction presents several problems for Huang and Fay’s appeal to civil rights law. Most importantly, ideologies are not a protected class under Title VI, which prohibits discrimination only on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.” Even if discrimination against pro-Israel ideology were construed as discrimination against national origin, the law protects people for who they are, not what political views they hold.
They could instead invoke the First Amendment, arguing that Davidson violated its own Commitment to Freedom of Expression. Yet this would still fall short of a constitutional claim. That policy is a self-imposed pledge, not a government mandate, and its breach—if any—would be contractual, not civil-rights-based. As Moody v. NetChoice affirms, the government cannot compel or redefine the speech choices of private institutions. Huang and Fay’s appeal, then, ultimately demands the very government intrusion that the First Amendment forbids.
The Curse of Government Intervention
But let us suppose for a moment that Huang and Fay got what they wanted. That Davidson draws the ire of the Trump administration and sees its federal funds withdrawn. Perhaps this solves their alleged discrimination problem and Davidson becomes a free speech utopia where no one gets censored for their beliefs again. But do we really think there will be no strings attached?
For one, the current administration has gone far beyond simply upholding free speech. It now ties federal funding to demands that universities “reform ideological bias” and enforce “viewpoint balance” in hiring and curriculum. What sounds like fairness in theory— especially when new faculty at colleges like Davidson must show how their teaching and research advance DEI—turns coercive in practice. Departments feel pressure to reorganize, professors to watch their words, and ideas to be tallied like demographics, as institutions overcompensate with arbitrary faculty reshuffles to prove compliance. It all amounts to an artificial attempt to shuffle opinions rather than strengthen debate.
“However imperfect the private marketplace of ideas, here was a worse proposal—the government itself deciding when speech was imbalanced, and then coercing speakers to provide more of some views or less of others.”
-Justice Kagan, NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (2024)
Furthermore, the current administration has proven to be a poor arbiter of free speech. The attorney general has wrongly claimed that “hate speech” is not protected, despite no legal basis for that view. And despite clear Supreme Court precedent, the president issued an executive order banning flag burning. Most recently, the administration has even revoked visas over online political speech, treating dissent as a threat rather than a right.
A Liberal Alternative
Davidson doesn’t need Washington’s hand to find its footing. It needs only to remember what it already stands for—the pursuit of truth. The college’s Commitment to Freedom of Expression wasn’t forced upon us; it was chosen as an extension of the values written into our own constitution. We voluntarily committed ourselves to this demanding standard, not because of pressure or politics, but because freedom of inquiry has always been central to Davidson’s mission of excellence.
And this year, the college has shown real steps toward that ideal: the creation of the Institute for Public Good, the full recognition of the Turning Point USA chapter despite campus controversy, and the hosting of a dialogue with Senators Thom Tillis and Amy Klobuchar that brought students from every political corner into the same room. These moments—imperfect but genuine—mark a campus learning again to argue, to listen, and to seek truth without fear.
These are not the signs of a silenced campus, but of one rediscovering its voice. Davidson’s progress doesn’t come from decrees or lawsuits—it comes from the students who argue with courage, the faculty who teach with conviction, and the alumni who still believe the truth is worth defending. Reform, in that sense, is not rebellion but return: a return to the liberal-arts experiment that trusts reason over regulation, dialogue over dogma. Washington should take note and perhaps educate itself in the very virtues of self-government it so often forgets to practice.
Davidson’s community can reform itself.
Bringing the attention of the White House to Davidson could also jeopardize the college’s ability to continue its need-blind admissions policy and promise to provide 100% of a family’s demonstrated financial need — a trademark of Davidson that sets it apart from other private NC schools like Duke.