More than one in five U.S. undergraduates told a new national survey that America “deserved” the September 11 attacks, and nearly half said violence can be justified to stop what they see as hate speech.
Story Snapshot
- The Buckley Institute reports 22% of students said America “deserved” September 11.
- Forty-five percent said physical violence can be justified to stop perceived hate speech.
- The survey queried 803 undergraduates nationwide from September 5–14, 2026.
- Liberal-identifying students reported higher agreement on both measures than conservatives.
What the 2026 student survey found
The Buckley Institute released a national undergraduate survey that highlights two stark results. First, 22% of respondents said America “deserved” the September 11 attacks. Second, 45% agreed that physical violence can be justified to stop what they see as hate speech. The survey included 803 undergraduates who answered between September 5 and 14, 2026. The Institute identified Inquire LLC as the fieldwork firm for this effort.
The Institute also shared subgroup patterns. It reported that 28% of liberal-identifying students endorsed the 9/11 “deserved” statement, compared with lower shares among moderates and conservatives. On the violence item, 54% of liberals, 36% of moderates, and 30% of conservatives agreed that physical force can be justified to stop perceived hate speech. The release further linked the two views, noting 41% overlap among those who supported violence to stop hate speech and the 9/11 “deserved” view.
How these findings compare with prior years
The violence result echoes earlier annual surveys from the same sponsor. In 2023, 45% of students agreed that violence could be justified to prevent hate speech or racially charged comments. In 2025, that number was 39% on a similar measure. The 2026 figure returns to the high end of that range. These repeating items suggest a durable share of students remain open to using force in the name of stopping offensive speech.
Secondary outlets amplified the headline numbers after the release. Some summaries listed small differences, such as 21% for the 9/11 item and 47% for the violence item. The sponsor attributes such gaps to rounding or net calculations based on unrounded figures. Those write-ups did not present separate datasets; they mainly repeated the sponsor’s top lines and framing for a general audience.
Why the results matter for campuses and politics
The 9/11 response forces a hard question for colleges and the country. A rising generation did not live through the attacks. Many view the world through recent wars, social media, and campus debates over identity and speech. When 22% tell a survey that America “deserved” 9/11, people hear a moral judgment on the nation. Families who lost loved ones hear pain. Leaders on right and left hear a warning about civic education, civic trust, and what is taught about history and morality.
The violence response reaches into daily campus life. If almost half of students say force can be used to stop what they see as hate speech, then protests, speaker events, and even classroom talk can feel at risk. That chills speech for everyone. Conservatives worry about being shouted down or worse. Liberals worry about minority voices facing threats. Both sides share a baseline fear: rules on campus feel arbitrary, and powerful people bend them to protect their own.
What the survey can and cannot tell us
The survey gives clear top-line numbers and dates, plus some breakdowns by ideology. It does not publish, in the release, the full questionnaire, recruitment method, or weighting details. That limits what readers can say about exact wording effects or how closely the sample matches all U.S. undergraduates. Those gaps do not erase the core finding, but they do set fair bounds on how far to take the conclusions beyond stated attitudes at one point in time.
Method choices often shape reported attitudes, especially on hot-button issues. Past research shows that small wording changes can swing results by double digits on political topics. The phrase “what they see as hate speech” may cue different ideas, from stopping slurs to blocking lawful but harsh debate. That makes transparent instruments and replications useful next steps. Still, the broad pattern across multiple Buckley surveys points to real and persistent tension over speech and force.
What to watch next
Colleges face a choice. Leaders can double down on rules that punish speech, which often backfires and breeds more anger. Or they can state bright lines against violence and for equal rights to speak, while enforcing neutral time, place, and manner rules. Lawmakers can tie public funding to transparent campus policies that protect peaceful speech. Citizens can demand clarity: no violence, no double standards, and strong teaching about 9/11, the Bill of Rights, and civic duties.
Sources:
redstate.com, buckleyinstitute.com
