For years, conservatives have positioned themselves as champions of free speech, decrying "cancel culture" and the suppression of conservative voices on college campuses. However, their recent support for aggressive federal interventions against student protesters and diversity initiatives exposes the political convenience of these claims rather than a principled commitment to open discourse.
The Trump administration’s warnings to 60 universities, threatening enforcement actions for failing to protect Jewish students [1], may address legitimate concerns over campus harassment, but they also signal an institutional orthodoxy that discourages dissent. The arrest and attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University protest leader, is an even clearer violation of free speech, prompting criticism from figures across the political spectrum.
Even conservative firebrand Ann Coulter questioned the legality of Khalil’s detention, while GOP strategist Matthew Bartlett warned that such actions contradict the party’s long-standing free speech rhetoric [2]. The more recent arrest of Turkish immigrant, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University Doctoral student, for writing a pro-Palestine op-ed is even more chilling [3].
This shift is further exemplified by the administration’s efforts to strip universities of billions in funding over their political stances. Columbia University, for instance, saw $400 million in federal grants revoked—an unprecedented move justified by claims that the school failed to combat antisemitism on campus [4]. While concerns about antisemitism and safety for students during campus protests are valid, the arrests and detention of students for their political advocacy are deeply concerning. As Steven Levitsky of Harvard warns, when universities, media outlets, and business leaders modify their behavior to avoid government retaliation, society crosses into "some form of authoritarianism" [5].
This erosion of free speech principles contradicts the very foundation of the First Amendment, which protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Supreme Court precedent has long affirmed that restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, violating the Constitution. Such restrictions deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive [6]. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in Abrams v. United States (1919), the best test of truth is its ability to prevail in the “marketplace of ideas.” Yet, rather than reaffirming this principle, recent government actions of deportations and defunding have moved toward controlling which ideas can be expressed on campuses.
The inconsistency of this new conservative approach is especially clear when considering Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Supreme Court ruled that speech can only be restricted if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This high bar has protected speech from all sides of the political spectrum—from Ku Klux Klan rhetoric (Brandenburg), to anti-war protests (Hess v. Indiana), to civil rights activism (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware). Conservatives once championed this broad protection when they saw themselves as the minority voice on campuses. Now, however, they appear more willing to suppress speech that challenges their own ideological comfort. While I understand the need to balance concerns for campus safety, free speech is a fundamental freedom that should not be threatened with deportation unless that speech directly leads to violence.
Even at private institutions like BYU, where the First Amendment does not directly apply, the principles of open discourse remain essential to education. I have loved my time at BYU and deeply appreciate the many insightful, ideologically diverse perspectives I have encountered. As Jonathan Rauch has noted, our Church has a unique commitment to promoting a pluralistic society, and Church leaders have reaffirmed BYU’s political neutrality while encouraging students to engage in meaningful debate [7].
At the same time, fostering a truly open exchange of ideas within a faith-based institution presents unique challenges. University policies and administrative decisions can sometimes create tensions between institutional values and broader conversations on diversity and inclusion. For instance, during Pride Month, some club social media accounts were restricted, and events related to diversity and anti-racism initiatives have faced administrative hurdles. Additionally, new faculty guidelines emphasize ideological alignment as a consideration in hiring and retention, which some worry may discourage faculty from engaging in difficult but necessary discussions [8].
Navigating these dynamics requires ongoing dialogue about how faith, intellectual inquiry, and diverse perspectives can coexist in a way that strengthens both the university community and students’ preparation for the wider world.
Ultimately, these developments illustrate a broader conservative hypocrisy: the same voices that once championed free expression now endorse radical censorship when it aligns with their political and cultural priorities. If free speech is to be a meaningful principle rather than a mere political tool, it must be defended consistently, not only when it serves a particular agenda. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), “That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source.” The real test of free speech is whether we defend it even when we find the ideas expressed offensive. If we abandon this principle now, we risk creating a political culture where suppression, rather than debate, becomes the norm.
