Recent attacks on academics in the United States point to a broader and more concerning trend, which is the erosion of democratic norms through political polarization and institutional vulnerability. While the U.S. continues to maintain formal protections for free speech, growing instances of politically motivated punishment suggest that these protections are becoming increasingly fragile in practice. These developments reflect a pattern of democratic backsliding in which core democratic principles remain intact on paper but are undermined in reality.

One of the clearest examples of this dynamic is the recent wave of doxxing campaigns targeting university faculty. Following the death of political activist Charlie Kirk, dozens of academics were subjected to online harassment and professional consequences for comments made on social media. According to Inside Higher Ed, at least 37 faculty and staff members at universities including Auburn,  Eastern New Mexico University-Roswell, and Coastal Carolina were targeted, with “at least 24 of those employees […] terminated, suspended or put on administrative leave” (Inside Higher Ed). These campaigns often begin with the circulation of personal information online, followed by coordinated calls for termination. As Yale law professor Keith Whittington explains, “This is primarily about exercising political power and trying to silence and suppress people who disagree with you politically” (Inside Higher Ed). In this sense, the issue is not simply about offensive speech, but about the use of social and political pressure to discipline dissent.

This trend raises serious concerns when viewed through the lens of democratic theory. Robert Dahl’s concept of polyarchy emphasizes the importance of free expression and open contestation as fundamental aspects of democracy. Universities, in particular, are meant to serve as spaces of high contestation, where diverse and even controversial ideas can be debated. The American Civil Liberties Union reinforces this principle, arguing that the First Amendment protects speech and symbolic expression even if it can be perceived as offensive and that restricting such speech amounts to government censorship. However, when institutions begin to punish speech that falls within these protections in response to political pressure they risk undermining the very conditions that sustain democracy.

At the same time, these developments reflect what scholars describe as stealth authoritarianism, which Ozan Varol describes as the use of “seemingly legitimate and neutral electoral laws, frequently enacted for the purported purpose of eliminating electoral fraud or promoting political stability, to create systematic advantages for themselves and raise the costs to the opposition of dethroning them.” Rather than outright banning speech, political actors and activist networks can create environments in which certain viewpoints become too costly to express. The rapid escalation of doxxing campaigns, combined with institutional responses such as suspensions and firings, demonstrates how power can be exercised outside formal legal channels. As Whittington notes, the scale and speed of these campaigns are “highly unusual,” suggesting an increase of tactics aimed at controlling public discourse.

These patterns are not occurring in isolation but are part of a broader trajectory of democratic backsliding in the United States. A recent study “U.S. Democracy is Under Attack. Here are Some Lessons for Democracy’s Defenders” from Good Authority highlights how current politicians combine several pathways of democratic erosion, including “an executive power grab” and “legislative capture,” both of which concentrate authority and weaken institutional checks. While the United States has not experienced a full breakdown of democratic institutions, these incremental shifts can gradually tilt the political system in favor of those in power. Rhetoric from political leaders also contributes to this process. For example, a 2025 executive order from the White House frames previous government actions as “weaponizing the legal force of numerous Federal law enforcement agencies […] against those perceived political opponents,” portraying political conflict in adversarial terms (The White House). This kind of framing aligns with Joseph Schumpeter’s critique of democracy, in which political competition can devolve into a struggle for power rather than a system for representing the public will.

Equally important is the erosion of democratic norms identified by Levitsky and Ziblatt. They argue that “two norms stand out as fundamental to a functioning democracy: mutual toleration and forbearance” (Levitsky & Ziblatt 102). Mutual toleration means recognizing political opponents as legitimate, while forbearance involves exercising restraint in the use of institutional power. In the context of U.S. universities, both norms appear to be weakening. Academics are increasingly treated not as legitimate participants in debate but as threats to be removed, while institutions abandon restraint by disciplining speech that is arguably protected. The result is a political environment in which formal democratic rights still exist, but the informal norms that sustain them are deteriorating.

Ultimately, attacks on academic freedom should not be viewed as isolated incidents, but as part of a larger pattern of democratic erosion. They reveal how informal pressures, political polarization, and institutional fragility can undermine core democratic principles even in the absence of formal legal changes. If universities, which are traditionally some of the strongest defenders of free expression, struggle to uphold these norms, it raises broader questions about the resilience of democratic institutions in the United States.