The recent cancellation of an appearance by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California at Berkeley resulted in confrontations between protestors. It’s the latest in a series of heated disputes that have taken place involving controversial speakers on campus.
One of us is a researcher of higher education legal issues (Neal) and one is a senior administrator in higher education (Brandi). Together, we’re interested in how institutions facilitate free speech while also supporting students.
From our different perspectives, we see two closely connected questions arise: What legal rules must colleges and universities follow when it comes to speech on campus? And what principles and educational values should guide university actions concerning free speech?
Key legal standards
When it comes to the legal requirements for free speech on campus, a key initial consideration is whether an institution is public or private.
Public colleges and universities, as governmental institutions, are obligated to uphold First Amendment protections for free speech. In contrast, private institutions may choose to adopt speech policies similar to their public counterparts, but they aren’t subject to constitutional speech requirements. California proves a notable exception: State law requires private secular colleges and universities to follow First Amendment standards in relation to students.
[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]Rather than labeling students as fragile ‘snowflakes,’ why not support and engage with them?[/quote]
For those colleges that are subject to constitutional speech rules, what does this mean?
For starters, an institution does not have to make all places on campus, such as offices or libraries, available to speakers or protesters. Universities may also provide less campus access to individuals unaffiliated with the institution, thus potentially limiting the presence on campus of activists or protesters who are not official members of the university community.
Regardless of these limitations on free speech, once an institution categorizes a campus space as accessible for students or permits its use for a specific purpose—such as musical or theatrical performances—campus officials must not favor particular views or messages in granting access.
Some campus areas, such as plazas or courtyards, either by tradition or designation, constitute open places for speech and expression, including for the general public. Colleges and universities may impose reasonable rules to regulate the use of these kinds of open campus forums (e.g., restrictions on the length of the event, blocking roadways, or the use of amplification devices). However, a guiding First Amendment principle is that institutions cannot impose restrictions based on the content of a speaker’s message.
Free speech zones
A central point of conflict over student speech and activism involves rules at some institutions that restrict student speech and related activities (such as protests, distributing fliers, or petition gathering) to specified areas or zones on campus.
Students have argued that such “free speech zones” are overly restrictive and violate the First Amendment. For instance, a community college student in Los Angeles alleges in a current lawsuit that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was allowed to distribute copies of the U.S Constitution only in a designated free speech zone. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, and Colorado (as of this April) have legislation that prohibits public institutions from enforcing such zones. At least six other states are considering similar laws.
In our view, legislative and litigation efforts may curtail the use of designated free speech zones for students in much of public higher education. In the meantime, increasing resistance could be enough to prompt many institutions to voluntarily end their use.
Beyond legal requirements
While legal compliance is certainly an important factor in shaping policy and practice around free speech, campus leaders should perhaps have a different consideration foremost on their minds: namely, the institutional mission of education.
Most students arrive on our nation’s campuses to acquire a degree, discover who they are, and determine what they want to be. Students grow in myriad ways—cognitively, morally, and psychosocially—while in college.
This personal development cannot fully take place without exposure to opposing views. To that end, students should be encouraged to express themselves civilly, listen to critiques of their ideas, and think deeply about their convictions. Then, in response, students can express themselves again in light of new and opposing ideas.
This process of engagement, productive discourse, and critical reflection can create tension and conflict for many. The reality is that protected free speech is not always viewed as good or productive speech by all members of the campus community.
However, rather than labeling students as fragile “snowflakes” or pressuring institutions to punish students who wish to challenge campus speakers, in our view, there’s a better approach. Why not take seriously students’ objections to controversial speakers—support them and engage with them on how to reconcile their concerns and institutional commitments to free speech?
Free speech issues on campus are often messy and can make both students and campus officials uneasy. But discomfort also presents an opportunity for growth. We believe that educational institutions have a responsibility to foster debate and to help students gain experience in processing and responding to messages they find objectionable.
And so, when controversies arise, campus officials—at times stretching their own comfort zones around issues of student speech and activism—can embrace the educational opportunities they present.
A young girl plays with a magnifying glass during a fiel tripCanva
A young girl feeds a cow Canva
Reddit commentReddit | u/AmbitiousPirate5159 
Young students get on the bus for a field tripCanva
Traffic sign.Image via 
Family shopping and single man ironing.Image via 
Multicultural young people having fun with a mobile phone.Image via 
Looking at a complicated market.Image via 
Ultrasound of human baby.Image via 
IVF animated process.Image via 
A couple speaks with a fertility professional.Image via 
Why do some folks use social media but don't engage?
Psychologist says people who never comment on social media share these 5 positive traits
For over 20 years, social media has developed into a staple in many people’s day-to-day lives. Whether it’s to keep in communication with friends and family, following the thoughts of celebrities, or watching cat videos while sipping your morning coffee, there seem to be two types of social media users: commenters and lurkers.
The term “lurker” sounds equally mysterious and insidious, with some social media users writing them off as non-participants at best or voyeurs at worst. However, mindfulness expert Lachlan Brown believes these non-commenters have some very psychologically positive and healthy traits. Let’s take a look at how each one of these traits could be beneficial and see how fruitful lurking might be even though it can drive content creators crazy.
1. Cautious about vulnerability
Consciously or not, making a post online or commenting on one puts you and your words out there. It’s a statement that everyone can see, even if it’s as simple as clicking “like.” Doing so opens yourself up to judgment, with all the good, bad, and potential misinterpretation that comes with it. Non-commenters would rather not open themselves up to that.
These silent users are connected to a concept of self-protection by simply not engaging. By just scrolling past posts or just reading/watching them without commentary, they’re preventing themselves from any downsides of sharing an opinion such as rejection, misunderstanding, or embarrassment. They also have more control on how much of themselves they’re willing to reveal to the general public, and tend to be more open face-to-face or during one-on-one/one-on-few private chats or DMs. This can be seen as a healthy boundary and prevents unnecessary exposure.
Considering many comment sections, especially involving political topics, are meant to stir negative emotional responses to increase engagement, being extra mindful about where, when, and what you comment might not be a bad idea. They might not even take the engagement bait at all. Or if they see a friend of theirs post something vulnerable, they feel more motivated to engage with them personally one-on-one rather than use social media to publicly check in on them.
2. Analytical and reflective mindset
How many times have you gone onto Reddit, YouTube, or any other site and just skimmed past comments that are just different versions of “yes, and,” “no, but,” or “yes, but”? Or the ever insightful, formerly popular comment “First!” in a thread? These silent browsers lean against adding to such noise unless they have some valid and thoughtful contribution (if they bother to comment period).
These non-posters are likely wired on reflective thinking rather than their initial intuition. Not to say that all those who comment aren’t thoughtful, but many tend to react quickly and comment based on their initial feelings rather than absorbing the information, thinking it over, researching or testing their belief, and then posting it. For "lurkers," it could by their very nature to just do all of that and not post it at all, or share their thoughts and findings privately with a friend. All in all, it’s a preference of substance over speed.
3. High sense of self-awareness
Carried over from the first two listed traits, these silent social media users incorporate their concern over their vulnerability and their reflective mindset into digital self-awareness. They know what triggers responses out of them and what causes them to engage in impulsive behavior. It could be that they have engaged with a troll in the past and felt foolish. Or that they just felt sad after a post or got into an unnecessary argument that impacted them offline. By knowing themselves and seeing what’s being discussed, they choose to weigh their words carefully or just not participate at all. It’s a form of self-preservation through restraint.
4. Prefer to observe rather than perform
Some folks treat social media as information, entertainment, or a mix of both, and commenting can feel like they’re yelling at the TV, clapping alone in a movie theater when the credits roll, or yelling “That’s not true!” to a news anchor that will never hear them. But contrary to that, social media is a place where those yells, claps, and accusations can be seen and get a response. By its design, social media is considered by experts and the media as performative, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Taking all of the previously mentioned traits into account, one can see why they would prefer to “observe the play” rather than get up on the stage of Facebook or X.
On top of that, these non-commenters could be using social media differently than those who choose to fully engage with it. Using this type of navigation, there may be nothing for them to comment about. Some commenters are even vying for this for their mental health. There are articles about how to better curate your social media feeds and manipulate algorithms to create a better social media experience to avoid unnecessary conflict or mentally tiring debate.
If you go on a blocking spree on all of your accounts and just follow the posters that boost you, it could turn your social media into a nice part of your routine as you mainly engage with others face-to-face or privately. In terms of commenting, if your curated Instagram is just following cute dogs and all you have to offer for a comment is “cute dog,” you might just enjoy the picture and then move on with your day rather than join in the noise. These non-commenters aren’t in the show and they’re fine with it.
5. Less motivated by social validation
The last trait that Brown showcases is that social media users who browse without posting tend to be independent from external validation, at least online. Social media is built to grow through feedback loops such as awarding likes, shares, and reposts of your content along with notifications letting you know that a new person follows you or wants to connect. This can lead many people to connect their activity on social media with their sense of self worth, especially with adolescents who are still figuring out their place in the world and have still-developing brains.
Engaging in social media via likes, shares, comments, and posts rewards our brains by having them release dopamine, which makes us feel good and can easily become addictive. For whatever reason, non-commenters don’t rely on social media as a means to gauge their social capital or self worth. This doesn’t make them better than those who do. While some non-commenters could have healthier ways to boost their self worth or release dopamine into their systems, many get that validation from equally unhealthy sources offline. That said, many non-commenters’ silence could be a display of independence and self confidence.
Whether you frequently comment online or don’t, it’s good to understand why you do or don’t. Analyzing your habits can help you determine whether your online engagement is healthy, or needs to be tweaked. With that information, you can then create a healthy social media experience that works for you.