Free Speech and Jewish Safety on Campus Aren’t Incompatible. It’s Time Universities Take Columbia’s Lead and Act Like It.

In the coming weeks, students will flood America's college campuses as they embark on a new school year. What remains to be seen is this: How do America's leading institutions deal with antisemitism against Jewish students while still protecting freedom of expression?

Columbia University’s landmark deal with the Trump administration has elicited mixed reactions. Some see it as a significant and long-overdue step, given how institutions of higher learning have stood by as campus climates grew increasingly hostile to Jews, especially in the wake of Hamas’s recent atrocities. Others see it as government overreach and a threat to university autonomy. 

At Columbia and dozens of other campuses, student groups openly celebrated the October 7, 2024 Hamas terrorist attack or rationalized it. Rallies praised Hamas “martyrs,” and chants called for the destruction of Israel. For many Jewish students—especially at elite universities where they once felt at home—this was a gut punch. The perpetrators of this new wave of antisemitism weren’t fringe neo-Nazis, but classmates, teaching assistants, and their own professors. 

This crisis has understandably prompted calls for action. But it also exposes a supposed dilemma: how to reconcile the protection of free speech with the need to provide a safe, nondiscriminatory environment for Jewish students. (We say 'supposed' because many universities that now cloak themselves in free speech absolutism have not shown the same commitment to the principle when it comes to disciplining offensive or insensitive speech targeting other minority groups.)

Some argue that combating antisemitism requires restricting certain kinds of speech, especially slogans and symbols that glorify Hamas or call for Israel’s destruction. Others insist that any such restrictions would trample on free expression and set dangerous precedents.

This is a false binary. Universities don’t have to choose between free speech and Jewish safety if they simply enforce their existing rules consistently and without ideological bias. 

Let’s start with the basics. Much of the worst behavior on campus—vandalism, assaults, building takeovers, intimidation of students, and illegal encampments—is not protected speech at all. It’s criminal conduct, and universities have every right (and obligation) to stop it. The same campus that would shut down a white supremacist occupation of a student center should do the same when the perpetrators fly Hamas flags and chant about “Zionist pigs.”

Universities also have tools to manage even protected speech. Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions—long upheld by courts—can and should be used to prevent disruptions of exams, classroom instruction, or official ceremonies. Students may have the right to express antisemitic or pro-Hamas views, but they don’t have the right to scream them through a megaphone during someone else’s graduation.

Harder questions arise when protected speech veers into creating a hostile environment. Can universities take action if a professor repeatedly denounces “Zionist students” or a teaching assistant asks whether she should grade Jews more harshly?

We argue that they can—and should—act in these cases, not by censoring opinions, but by upholding professional and institutional responsibilities. Professors who signal an unwillingness to treat Jewish students fairly may not be violating the First Amendment, but they are abdicating their academic duties. They should be investigated and, if necessary, disciplined—not for their beliefs, but for discriminatory conduct.

At the same time, universities must avoid the double standards that have fueled so much mistrust. Many Jewish students have watched with disbelief as schools that punished microaggressions against other minorities suddenly discover a newfound devotion to free speech when the targets are Jews. That hypocrisy is itself a form of institutional antisemitism—and it must end.

Some will say that two wrongs don’t make a right—that the answer to censorship elsewhere is not more censorship here. We agree. The long-term solution must be a recommitment to liberal principles for everyone: free speech, institutional neutrality, and equal protection under the law. In fact, the three most stifling environments for free speech, according to FIRE’s annual free speech rankings of college campuses—Harvard, Penn, and Columbia—are also among the most hostile environments for Jewish students.

There are a variety of ways to combat this. On the one hand, universities should consistently advocate for free speech for all, and that the long-term solution lies in persuading institutions to 'level up' by applying robust free speech standards equally, regardless of which group feels aggrieved.

Another point of view is that when a university refuses to uphold a consistent standard, Jewish students should not be left defenseless. In such cases, we must demand that universities apply the same protections and penalties to antisemitic speech as they do for speech that offends other minorities. To do otherwise is to accept a double standard that effectively relegates Jewish students to second-class status.

Free speech and Jewish safety are not opposing values; they rise and fall together. If universities are serious about both, they must abandon double standards and enforce their policies with fairness, courage, and clarity.