On April 10, 2025, Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites, visited Washington University School of Law to discuss the ideological and bureaucratic challenges facing American higher education. In this lecture, Shapiro argues that elite universities have abandoned their core mission of truth-seeking in favor of activism, driven by bloated administrations and timid leadership. Drawing on personal experience and national trends, he explains how law schools, in particular, are failing to uphold classical liberal values such as free speech, academic freedom, and equal justice.

Listen to it as a podcast

The event was hosted by the Show-Me Institute, the Federalist Society, the Sinquefield Charitable Foundation, and Show-Me Opportunity.

The post Lawless: Ilya Shapiro on Free Speech in Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This has, not surprisingly, led to a lot of citizen concern and pushback. In response to this, city government has gone in exactly the wrong direction and scaled back public comments at its council meetings. This is not how local government is supposed to operate.

I worked at the St. Louis County Council from 2001 through 2006. Most of the time, very few people showed up to give public comment. There were exceptions. Over the past few decades, several things have happened to change how local governments in Missouri (and probably everywhere) handle public comments in meetings. First, security concerns have increased for obvious reasons. Second, adding video and streaming to local meetings has encouraged some people to attend and play to the crowd while speaking. Finally, COVID really brought local government front and center to a lot of people (and not in a good way).

So some local governments have changed speaking policies after some public comment sessions got out of hand, like this one. Sedalia, however, has in my opinion gone too far (and I say that as someone who speaks before a lot of local councils).

Sedalia has limited all public comments to items on the agenda unless you have requested permission 48 hours beforehand to speak about something else. I don’t oppose a similar version of this idea, which St. Louis County and a few others have implemented, which is to place public comment on agenda items early in the meeting (where it should be, before officials vote on the issue) and save non-agenda items for the end (where officials can leave if they have to as their voting is over). I also don’t disagree with time limits on comments, though those limits should be flexible based on the number of speakers. (Sedalia’s three-minute time limit is not flexible.)

Being forced by Sedalia city government to beg permission to speak on other items of concern 48 hours ahead of time is deeply troubling. Here is a recent video of people being aggressively gaveled down at the end of a meeting for simply wanting to make public comment. (I know at least one of these people stated they requested permission more than 48 hours ahead of time, but apparently that request was “lost.”)

Local governments have a right to impose some limits on public comments at their meetings to manage an orderly process. Sedalia is going too far, however. Requiring 48-hour notice and pre-approval for speakers who simply want to address city issues that might not be on that night’s agenda is not good local government practice. Sedalia should change its rules.

The post Shutting Down Dissent in Sedalia appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

-Optimism about the 2025 legislative session
-DESE’s accountability system lacks accountability
-The potential for more nuclear power in Missouri
-An update on Medicaid expansion in Missouri
-St. Louis municipalities behaving badly
-Free speech means sometimes hearing out bad ideas

Click here to find the newsletter.

The post Show-Me Institute’s December 2024 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, Exeter’s response to our request didn’t live up to the cheery atmosphere of its Facebook account, which has the city’s brightly colored logo of a cartoon tree as its profile picture. Two days after we sent our initial request, city attorney Darwin Groomer responded with this:

“Before the City will comply with your records request, you must tell me who you are and why you believe you need the information. No one has ever heard of you. Your request/demand is denied, until you comply with our demands, and until we deem it necessary to comply.”

Obviously, there are some real problems with Mr. Groomer’s response. I’m not a lawyer, but it was just as clear to me as to the attorney on our checkbook request team that there’s no loophole in the Sunshine Law requiring the government in question to have heard of the person making the request. The law is intended to make government documents accessible to anyone who wants to see them, not just those who city officials decide meet their personal criteria. After we informed the Attorney General’s office of Exeter’s violation, we received a second email in which Mr. Groomer told us that at some point he would provide an estimate. We received the estimate, $15, almost 2 weeks later.

Of all the cities in this year’s municipal checkbook project, Exeter’s initial flat-out refusal to comply unless we met a standard set not by a democratic process, but arbitrarily by a single attorney, showed the least interest in transparency. Even though the city eventually complied with our request at a fair price, I believe Exeter residents deserve better than a government that may decide to invent exceptions to a law that protects citizens’ right to know how city officials make important decisions and spend public money.

The post In Denial: Municipal Checkbook Hall of Shame appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Douglas Murray is a best-selling author, an award-winning political commentator, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He has written books on neoconservatism, terrorism and national security, freedom of speech, and the rise of woke culture and identity politics. His upcoming book, The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason, explores why in recent history it has become acceptable to discuss the flaws and crimes of Western culture, but celebrating the West’s contributions is condemned as hate speech.

Presentation recorded on November 10, 2021, in St. Louis, Missouri at an event presented by Show-Me Institute, Show-Me Opportunity, National Review Institute, and NewsTalkSTL.

The post Douglas Murray: Reflections on the Revolution in America appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

National Review Institute’s Douglas Murray joined The Tim Jones and Chris Arps Show on NewsTalkSTL to discuss the recent shift in American culture, his November 10 event in St. Louis, and more.

Event Information

You are invited to join the Show-Me Institute, Show-Me Opportunity, National Review Institute, and NewsTalkSTL on Wednesday, November 10 for a complimentary event with Douglas Murray. Murray will give an outsider’s perspective on the recent shifts in American culture, the culture wars, and the attack on free speech and education. Please RSVP to secure your seat.

Murray is a best-selling author, an award-winning political commentator, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He has written books on neoconservatism, terrorism and national security, freedom of speech, and the rise of woke culture and identity politics. His upcoming book, The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason, explores why in recent history it has become acceptable to discuss the flaws and crimes of Western culture, but celebrating the West’s contributions is condemned as hate speech. 

The reception begins at 5:30 p.m. with hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar. The presentation begins at 6 p.m.

Register Here

More Ways to Listen

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on SoundCloud

The post What’s Coming Is a Tragedy that Historians Will Only Wonder About appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Murray is a best-selling author, an award-winning political commentator, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He has written books on neoconservatism, terrorism and national security, freedom of speech, and the rise of woke culture and identity politics. His upcoming book, The War on the West: How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason, explores why in recent history it has become acceptable to discuss the flaws and crimes of Western culture, but celebrating the West’s contributions is condemned as hate speech.

The reception begins at 5:30 p.m. with hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar. The presentation begins at 6 p.m.

Register Here

The post Douglas Murray in St. Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Listen to more of The Vic Porcelli Show on NewsTalk STL

Listen on SoundCloud

Listen on Sticher 

Listen on Apple Podcasts

The post Listen: The Latest on CRT in Missouri Schools appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post You Can Say That: A Lecture from David French appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post David French on Free Speech appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Health insurance premium hikes
• Free speech on college campuses
• Nationwide school choice survey results
• Transparency for special taxing districts
• School choice in Illinois
• Criminal justice reform opportunities

Click on the link below to read more.

The post Show-Me Institute’s October 2017 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One paragraph in particular stands out:

“Thus, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. Individual members of the University community, not the University as an institution, should make their own moral judgments about the content of constitutionally protected speech, and should express these judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission.”

This is exactly right. The mission of the University should be to empower students with the skills and knowledge that they need to debate and disprove things that they believe are false, not to tell them it’s OK to run and hide from them.

As FIRE points out, Mizzou’s new free speech policy is based upon the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, a document published several years ago at the University of Chicago that has become the gold standard for ensuring that students and faculty have the maximum freedom to discuss and debate topics of importance.

Here at the Show-Me Institute, we have been urging the university to adopt such speech protections for some time now.  In a report I co-authored with Michael Highsmith, “Moving Mizzou Forward: Reform Ideas from Around the Nation” we wrote:

“Freedom of speech and debate is at risk and can be protected. It seems that not a week of the school year goes by without some story emerging about efforts by a student council, residence hall, professor, or school administrator to stifle the speech of students. If we do not impress upon our students the importance of free speech and defend it vigorously, we risk creating a citizenry that does not value one of the foundational values upon which our nation was built. Luckily, institutions like the University of Chicago offer a great blueprint for fostering debate and protecting speech. Mizzou would be wise to study that blueprint carefully.”

Mizzou has clearly done this. Good for them. 

The post Great News! Mizzou Embraces Free Speech appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Patrick Tuohey on KCPT’s Ruckus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Nationwide there are six liberal professors for every conservative professor.

This data point was emphasized in a recent Boston Magazine article in which Chris Sweeny records stories of students and professors afraid to express their conservative viewpoints because of the threat of backlash. While there is no single cause behind this fear, the political composition of colleges’ faculties may be a significant factor.

The 6-to-1 ratio comes from the work of Dr. Samuel Abrams, professor at Sarah Lawrence College in New York. Interestingly, this ratio was not uniform nationwide. Of all the factors he examined—religious affiliations, departmental differences, size of college, etc.—the region in which the college is located had the biggest impact.

The West Coast matched the national average of 6 to 1 and the Plains and Southeast had the most balanced ratio, at 3 to 1. Far surpassing other regions, however, was New England—where liberal professors outnumbered their conservative colleagues 28 to 1.

While it is not surprising that university faculty in New England are more liberal than their counterparts in the Plains region, such a large disparity is disturbing. Moreover, it should concern Missourians that the University of Missouri is currently facing some problems that we might expect to see in New England schools, given their apparent lack of intellectual diversity.

In November, Mike McShane wrote about Mizzou being tied for last place on Heterodox Academy’s ranking of the top 150 universities for their policies on free speech and acceptance of different viewpoints. Since then, Mizzou has “improved,” and is now second to last according to the updated rankings. The University of Oregon, scoring 0 out of 100, is in sole possession of last place. Mizzou scored an underwhelming 6.25 out of 100 points, tying them with Georgetown, Harvard, New York University, and Rutgers.

While it is unlikely the ratio between liberal and conservative professors will become more balanced any time soon, universities can implement policies to protect the viewpoints of students and faculty. The University of Chicago’s commitment to Freedom of Expression is one such policy Mizzou should adopt.

In their recent paper, Mike McShane and Michael Highsmith wrote:

Freedom of speech and debate is at risk and can be protected. It seems that not a week of the school year goes by without some story emerging about efforts by a student council, residence hall, professor, or school administrator to stifle the speech of students. If we do not impress upon our students the importance of free speech and defend it vigorously, we risk creating a citizenry that does not value one of the foundational values upon which our nation was built. Luckily, institutions like the University of Chicago offer a great blueprint for fostering debate and protecting speech. Mizzou would be wise to study that blueprint carefully.

Even in an environment where conservative students and faculty are in the minority, their rights and contributions can be respected.

The post Conservatives on Campus: A Vanishing Breed? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

• Opportunities for health care reform
• Our blueprint for free-market reform in 2017
• Electronic vehicle charging station policy
• Anemic startup growth in Missouri
• Sustainable funding for our transportation system
• Subsidy policy in Kansas City
• Free speech at Mizzou

Click on the link below to read more

The post Show-Me Institute’s December 2016 Newsletter appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Rebecca Friedrichs is a public school teacher in California who has long struggled with the California Teachers Association, a union that advocates for policies that run counter to Rebecca’s beliefs. Because a majority of the teachers in Rebecca’s school district at one time voted to elect the California Teachers Association to represent them, every current teacher in the district—including Rebecca—is now forced to pay to support the Association.

Rebecca believes this violates her rights. And she has a pretty strong case.

Rebecca’s case is fundamentally about the right of an individual or a minority in a group to think differently than the majority. The majority of the teachers in Mrs. Friedrichs’ school district support a union with an agenda that she disagrees with. Rebecca stands apart as someone who wants to speak with her own voice.

The court’s decision could affect public employees here in Missouri. If the court sides with Mrs. Friedrichs, it would expand the first amendment rights of thousands of teachers, fire fighters, and other Missouri government workers. As a result, each Missouri government employee could choose whether or not to support the union that operates in his or her workplace.

The post Rebecca Friedrichs’ Supreme Court Case Could Expand Workers Rights in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The thin silver lining here is that Mizzou's broken campus culture—not only among students, but among faculty as well—has finally been laid bare, providing the opportunity for policymakers and administrators to fix it.

So, where does Mizzou go from here? One important step would be to reestablish the University's bona fides as an institution that believes in free speech for everyone, not just those who support the politics of the university faculty. On point, L. Gordon Crovitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about a strong, student-supporting free speech policy that the University of Chicago adopted earlier this year. The policy has already been adopted at Purdue and Princeton, and which is now being pushed nationwide by FIRE, a student advocacy group.

You can find the University of Chicago's full report here, but I'd like to pull out two important paragraphs that could have written about Mizzou and its handling of free speech issues. (Emphases mine)

As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university. The University of Chicago’s longstanding commitment to this principle lies at the very core of our University’s greatness. That is our inheritance, and it is our promise to the future.

A lot needs to change at Mizzou in the coming months. Administrators should start by unequivocally rejecting the university’s recent Orwellian nonsense on speech matters and commit to the free speech principles on which this country was founded, and possibly by adopting the University of Chicago policy construction. As the University of Chicago statement suggests, open inquiry and speech are the inheritance of all universities. It is up to policymakers and administrators to ensure that this inheritance is not wasted at Mizzou.

The post University of Chicago: An Example for Mizzou on Free Speech appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We’ve uncovered several union contracts, such as the contracts at the Jennings Fire Department, the Pattonville Fire District, and the Robertson Fire District, that require employees who choose not to join the union to pay a monthly fee equal to full membership dues. The fact that nonmember fees are equal to full dues means that even if you exercise your constitutionally protected right not to join the union, your monthly fees end up directly or indirectly paying for union politics.

Nonmember fees should be reduced in proportion with the amount of money the union spends on political activity. If 50% of a union’s revenues go to political activities, nonmember fees should be 50% of full member dues. In the contracts where nonmember fees are held equal to dues, a nonmember ends up subsidizing political speech unless that union engages in no politics whatsoever.

The union that holds contracts with the fire districts and departments mentioned above is the International Association of Fire Fighters. According to public filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission, this union has spent over three million dollars on political activities in Missouri over the last ten years. Nonmembers who didn’t have their fees prorated ended up paying for some of this.

Anyone subject to a union contract that doesn’t allow workers to opt out of union politics can fight back. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a worker’s right to pay only that portion of union dues directly related to representation. A worker who objects to union political activity that he or she pays for should demand a refund of the portion of his or her dues that went to political activity. Below are some resources that can help:

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/understanding-beck-rights/

http://www.unionrefund.org/index.asp

The post Missouri Government Union Contracts Forcing Workers to Pay for Union Politics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Just not legally.

On 10:00 A.M., Uber, a prominent national ridesharing company, simultaneously filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the Saint Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission (MTC) and launched UberX in defiance of that commission. This move followed the breakdown of negotiations between the MTC, Uber, and local government officials over new ridesharing regulations. Some MTC commissioners claim they have made all the concessions they can, and that they are simply enforcing state statutes on fingerprinting and background checks. However, Uber and other local officials claim that remaining regulatory barriers are unnecessary and will prevent Uber from serving the metropolitan area.

In addition to its inability to end Saint Louis’s status as the largest city in the United States without cheap ridesharing, the MTC continues to embarrass the city in its spare time. The latest incident came when a local resident submitted a sunshine request asking for comments and complaints received by the MTC in the last 18 months. One might expect a body whose core mission is to ensure quality cab service to have readily accessible complaint data, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. According to the MTC, complaints are not “readily kept in the ordinary course of our record keeping.” They charged the resident nearly $500 dollars, an amazing sum for files that most governmental organizations would have aggregated and digitized. Those who have read about the MTC’s reaction to a  Show-Me Institute sunshine request will be unsurprised by the MTC’s lack of professionalism.

It is exactly one year and seven months since Lyft, another ridesharing company, attempted to enter the Saint Louis market. Since that time, the MTC has constantly resisted reform, treated requests for information with contempt, insulted the public, and engaged in offensive infighting. How can a commission that cannot regulate its own behavior be expected to regulate the taxi market? How long must residents put up with this self-serving commission? As we’ve suggested before, it may be time for the state to disband the taxicab commission altogether. 

The post Taxicab Commission Still Stonewalling Uber, Residents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From the Chicago Sun Times:

The Amalgamated Transit Union Locals 241 and 308 filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court, arguing that the CTA violated workers’ freedom of speech by prohibiting the “Transit for Chuy” flier from break rooms.

But CTA spokesman Brian Steele said the ATU is the lone CTA union “seeking to violate long-standing state laws that prohibit political activities on government property and government time, at taxpayer expense.”

Setting aside Chicago politics, I see this fight as an illustration of the often-overlooked fact that government unions are uniquely political actors. Government unions are one of the most important special interests in contemporary politics. They have special access and privileges, and, as taxpayers, we pay for them. A union’s whole purpose—to influence employer decisions on behalf of its members—is political when the union represents government.

In Missouri, public agencies may meet with unions and set policies in closed sessions. Also in Missouri, government unions may hide their financial and political activities, while traditional unions have to disclose this information to the public.

The framework for American collective bargaining was created to protect industrial workers from progressive-era robber barons. Is it a good idea to allow government bureaucracy the same legal privileges? If we’re going to give government unions this kind of power, we should at least hold it in check with a modicum of transparency.

The post Chicago Fight Reveals Extent of Government Union Political Involvement appeared first on Show-Me Institute.