May 3, 2024 - 3:00pm

The recent swathe of pro-Palestine encampments on US college campuses has created a rhetorical minefield for ongoing debates around freedom of speech. Determined to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, protesters have engaged in vandalism, harassment and intimidation — all while insisting that their detractors are infringing on their right to free expression. University leaders shouldn’t be tricked by this bait-and-switch: conduct is not speech, and universities have no obligation to allow students to run roughshod over campus in the name of free expression. But instead of enforcing the rules quickly and consistently, university leaders have emboldened protesters by failing to draw clear boundaries.

The current wave of protests started at Columbia University, the same day as university president Minouche Shafik’s testimony to Congress on campus antisemitism. Students set up unauthorised encampments as part of a protest against Columbia’s supposed investment in Israeli companies. Soon after, students on other campuses followed suit with similar demands and methods. While there was an initial bout of police responses, many encampments were re-established and university leadership seemed to back off. Since then, protestors at these encampments have vandalised university property, smashed windows, and scuffled with the police.

Tolerating these illegal encampments is not a principled defence of free speech. It’s a cowardly appeasement of a mob that threatens civil discourse on campus.

When university leaders vacillate on their response to the encampments, they mislead faculty and students on their rights. Free speech encompasses the right to peacefully protest, but even public universities may impose time, place, and manner restrictions on this right. For instance, a loud protest outside of a residential building at 2am should not be allowed. Taking over buildings and blocking pathways without authorisation are also disruptive methods of protest that should not be allowed. None of these restrictions infringe on freedom of speech: protesters can choose to deliver the exact same message in an authorised manner.

Hesitating to enforce restrictions that are already on the books, however, emboldens those who wish to exploit this confusion about free speech rights. Protesters invoke the seriousness of their cause to justify their extreme behaviour. University leadership must ignore this: for the rules to be fair, they must be content-neutral.

I saw firsthand how things can spiral out of control when administrators fail to send a clear message about what is not allowed. When I attended the demonstrations at the University of Pennsylvania a day after they began, the environment was relatively tame compared to Columbia. Rules had already been broken: protesters had vandalised a statue, and they had set up an encampment. The school failed to take serious action other than cleaning up the statue, probably hoping that nothing worse would happen.

Since Thursday, the situation has escalated. Gates now block off the encampment. Students received multiple warnings throughout the day from public safety officials to avoid the immediate area of the encampment. Protesters reclaimed the previously vandalised statue. And now the university is begging the local police department to step in.

There is a better way to handle these protests: inform students about the boundaries of what is allowed, and consistently enforce the rules. Pomona College president Gabrielle Starr immediately suspended and arrested students who rushed into her office. The University of Florida clearly delineated what kind of conduct it would not tolerate, such as camping and violence. It also discussed acceptable activities including verbal and written expression. The University of Chicago acted similarly, going so far as to provide students with examples of acceptable protests.

Appeasing the mob only emboldens bad actors, often leading to violence. But by drawing clear and consistent boundaries, universities can maintain a healthy, pro-free speech environment on campus.


Neetu Arnold is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on X @neetu_arnold

neetu_arnold