MIT Free Speech Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
874018419
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cambridge, MA, USA
Phone
2155312171
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Censorship, Freedom of Speech and Press

Reported finances

Revenue
$236,015
Expenses
$352,768
Assets
$272,166
Liabilities
$42,966

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Peter Bonilla (Executive Director)
  • Wayne Stargardt (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Peter Bonilla (Executive Director): $134,161 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote free expression, academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and open scientific inquiry in the MIT community

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025 the MIT Free Speech Alliance conducted another full year of public programming while maintaining a membership of more than 1,200. MFSA hosted two campus debates at MIT, in the spring and fall of 2025. Our Spring debate was on the issue of closing the gender gap in the STEM professions. Our Fall 2025 debate addressed the issue of American higher educations reliance on international students. As with previous years, our debates brought together a heterodox group of debaters and successfully modeled civil discourse for the MIT community. Also in the fall of 2025, MFSA held its third annual conference. This conference brought together representatives from various MIT constituencies, including students, faculty, alumni, and trustees, for discussions on how the university can work to foster free expression and civil discourse. The conference was highlighted by a keynote speech from Brookings Institution scholar Jonathan Rauch. Throughout 2025 we provided commentary on free speech issues of concern to the MIT community. We gathered our members for quarterly virtual discussions with notable guest speakers, and also sponsored or co-sponsored lectures on topical issues in free speech and higher education open to the MIT community. Additionally, our leaders gave presentations at a national conference on censorship in STEM; at the Heterodox Academy annual conference; and at the annual meeting of the Academic Freedom Alliance. Finally, MFSA saw its strongest fundraising year to date, increasing contributions from its members by nearly 40% over the previous year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -49.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 47.2% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.1% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $181K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $134K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.