Killing Campus Protest

A potentially lethal combination of forces threatens to end campus protests.

Historically, protests on university campuses have challenged norms and highlighted issues of public concern, including the costs of war and the evils of racial apartheid. Campus activism is often peaceful and lawful, but can also involve acts of violence, vandalism, and rule-breaking. Recent protests that focused on the war between Hamas and Israel have led to a series of responsive measures - by universities, federal and state governments, donors, and others - that together imperil a long tradition of campus activism. I won’t address whether the death of campus protests would be normatively bad for our culture of free expression or American democracy, although I think it would be for many reasons. Rather, my goal here is to describe the six forces that, in combination, are likely to significantly chill if not outright kill campus protest (at least as we have known it).

1. New Campus Protest Regulations. Even before recent campus unrest, it was no easy matter to plan and participate in campus protests. Universities have long had regulations about where, when, and how students and others can demonstrate on campus. As I explained in an article about university responses to the 2023-2024 campus protests, many proposed and enacted additional restrictions on expressive activity. Among the regulations are additional limits on the places, times, and means of demonstration. Many universities banned camping and vigils. But they also banned masks, sharply limited the locations where students and others could assemble, imposed strict time limits on such assemblies, adopted restrictions on chalking and leafletting, clamped down on silent vigils in libraries and other spaces, and restricted the presence of non-community members at campus protests. Universities have also hired or beefed up campus police and security forces. When they adopted these policies, universities were not acting solely in response to local or institutional concerns. Congress had already grilled several university presidents concerning their responses to campus protests, and several resigned or were pushed out as a result of their testimony. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and other GOP lawmakers visited Columbia University to urge that stronger measures be taken against student and other activists and that Columbia’s president resign. Then-candidate Trump promised he would “crush” the pro-Palestine movement and “deport” student protesters. Donors and alumni also pressured universities to crack down on what they saw as anti-Semitic demonstrations and rampant rule-breaking. In response to these influences and events, universities adopted a raft of additional restrictions on campus activism.

2. Targeting International Student Activists. Once in office, President Trump made good on his vow to arrest and deport international students who organized or participated in campus protests. The Department of Homeland Security investigated international students and foreign scholars and Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked their visas. In most of the cases, the ground for revoking the visa was, as far as the public record so far reveals, participating in pro-Palestine or anti-Israel demonstrations or, in one case, co-authoring an op-ed for a student news paper that urged university leaders to financially divest from Israel. The Trump Administration not only revoked individuals’ visas, but arrested and transported them to Louisiana where they were to be detained pending deportation proceedings. (Courts subsequently granted the individuals bail and released them, in part because the evidence showed they had been detained based solely on their political expression.) The message of these actions against campus visa holders could hardly be clearer: if you are a student studying on a visa, you participate in public political expression at your own grave peril. Whatever happens in future immigration proceedings, or at the trial I’ve been covering that involves a legal challenge to the Administration’s treatment of visa holders, the result of these actions will chill a substantial number of students from participating in campus protests. That chill is likely to last well beyond the current Administration, and may recur any time a Republican occupies the White House.

3. Title VI Investigations and Sanctions. The Trump Administration has also taken additional actions that will affect campus protests. It has investigated or threated to investigate universities for alleged violations of Title VI, a federal law that obligates recipients of federal education funds to take steps to protect students and others from discrimination and harassment - including on the basis of Jewish ancestry. The application of Title VI affects campus protests in two respects.

   1. First, the Trump Administration has indicated that in order to continue to receive federal funding, universities must change their campus protest policies and disciplinary codes. For example, in a letter it informed Harvard University that in light of its alleged failure to protect Jewish students under Title VI, it must adopt rules that result in “immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions,” “robust” enforcement of existing time, place, and manner regulations by Harvard police, and disciplinary processes under the control of “one body” that is “accountable to Harvard’s president.” In addition, the Administration demanded that Harvard “end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student organizations.” The university was informed it must also adopt a “comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.” Many protests cause “disruptions;” indeed, one purpose of a protest is to disrupt ordinary events to force an audience to take note. The Administration’s other demands focus on restricting and punishing protest activities. Harvard has filed a lawsuit alleging that these and many other Administration demands violate the First Amendment. But other universities, including Columbia University, are poised to accept these and other conditions if only to avoid Harvard’s situation (it is currently the subject of at least eight separate agency investigations and has been stripped of its federal funding).

   2. Second, the Trump Administration has invoked Title VI as the basis for terminating billions of dollars in federal educational funding. One of the allegations it has made (but not proved) is that the university failed to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination. Much, though not all, of the protest activity at the heart of that allegation amounts to pro-Palestine or anti-Israel speech the First Amendment protects. Title VI also requires that universities respond to and prevent a “hostile environment” based on race, ethnicity, and other characteristics. Under the Administration’s interpretation, political demonstrations could themselves constitute a “hostile environment.” If other Administrations adopt that view, universities would be obligated to treat protests about other topics - race, transgender status, or U.S. relations with China or Ukraine - as hostile environments for certain students. Protests frequently involve incendiary rhetoric and communication of offensive ideas. Universities, in particular those faced with the termination of federal funds, may treat that as a reason to censor expression.

4. University Disciplinary Measures. The Trump Administration’s letter to Harvard University focused in part on ensuring swift and effective discipline for violations of rising numbers of campus expressive regulations. For example, the Harvard letter called for automatic suspension for violating a mask requirement, expulsion of students engaged in protest-related misconduct, and discipline of student group leadership. Disciplinary actions spiked as a result of the 2023-24 campus protests. Some students were informed they would not be allowed to return to campus, to attend commencement, or to receive their diplomas. Universities have adopted increasingly harsh disciplinary measures, including loss of scholarships, tuition, and even access to on-campus housing and meal plans. To be sure, some discipline is appropriate for rules violations. But universities are being encouraged by political and other actors to adopt increasingly draconian punishments. As the administrative and disciplinary consequences of violating an increasing number of campus rules and regulations rise, the likelihood that students will be willing to participate in protests will likely decrease.

5. State Legislation. Specific campus expression and protest policies are typically the province of universities. State legislatures have not historically enacted laws governing speech on campus. That has changed recently. As of 2024, at least 23 states had adopted “campus free speech protection acts,” which apply to public institutions of higher learning. Those laws, which responded to concerns about censorship of conservative ideas on campus, affirmed students’ and others’ expressive rights and provided that universities should not attempt to shield students from ideas they find offensive. Of course, some conservative legislatures have since enacted laws forbidding discussion of certain ideas in classrooms. Some have also started to focus on campus protests. For example, a Texas bill currently sitting on Governor Abbott’s desk for his signature would ban encampments, masking, and all “expressive activities” on campuses in Texas between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am. The bill does not define “expressive activities,” which could include activities such as gathering in small groups, conversing in a dining hall, or displaying certain messages on placards or clothing. Arizona has also recently enacted a law that bans encampments on public university campuses. Don’t be surprised to see a trend in which other state legislatures enact legislation designed to further restrict campus protest activities.

6. Doxing and Other Consequences. Finally, the sanctions and consequences of organizing and participating in campus protests are not limited to those meted out by university disciplinary bodies. Especially on campuses where they are no longer allowed to conceal their identity, student demonstrators are at risk of being doxed and harassed. Further, alumni at some universities have stated they would not hire pro-Palestine student activists. A group of federal judges took the highly unusual step of publicly pledging not to hire any students from Columbia University or Columbia Law School - whether or not they participated in a campus protest. Students considering whether to engage in public activism will have to consider these kinds of potential consequences.

These influences will likely have a profound effect on the future of campus protest and dissent. If one were considering a formula or plan for killing campus protest, one would be hard pressed to do better than these six items.