Last month in The Argus, I criticized President Donald Trump’s executive order intended to reduce antisemitism on campuses and revoke the visas of international students who advocate for US-designated foreign terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. I argued that if there is to be a place where a multitude of ideas—including those that are offensive or illogical—should be presented and debated, it should be a college campus.

Not only does the executive order fly in the face of free speech principles, Trump’s approach will not even work to stop the proliferation of antisemitism on campuses. Though the administration can hypothetically deport a Canadian “revolutionary” who has stickers of Che Guevara and Yahya Sinwar on their MacBook Pro, there are hundreds or thousands of like-minded American students remaining on the campus.

The way the Trump administration can effectively respond to campus antisemitism is not to target forms of speech, but to make sure colleges are enforcing their current rules, which establish reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and conduct of campus protests. Billions of dollars in federal funding to colleges and universities are already conditioned on the basis of compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and other statutes. In that spirit, the Trump administration, with congressional backing, should condition aid on the basis that campus codes of conduct are enforced to ensure a prudent learning environment for students.

Around the country, numerous protests have crossed the line from protected speech—peaceful protests, petitioning and other similar activities—into acts that are clearly not protected. Interrupting classes, preventing students from accessing parts of campus (especially on the condition of their ethnicity or religious views), shouting down speakers, destroying property, or making threats of violence are not protected forms of speech. However, in countless instances, students, particularly at “elite” colleges and universities (and I use that term loosely), have engaged in these serious violations and gotten off virtually scot-free.

Just yesterday at Barnard College, a group of students part of the group Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) entered a building on campus, assaulted an employee of the school—sending them to the hospital—and prevented students from attending their scheduled classes. All the while, one of Barnard’s deans had to ask the students for permission to use her own restroom—as if the students were hall monitors in fifth grade, but with masks and a bullhorn. The students were told again that they must leave in a letter from college administrators, who suggested they would face disciplinary action if they stayed after 10:30 p.m.

In 2018, student protestors at Middlebury College prevented conservative political scientist Charles Murray from speaking. In the madness, a professor was assaulted, but students were given a slap on the wrist as punishment. In 2023, students at Harvard took over a building; the university gave them burritos and Twizzlers. Last year, at Columbia, a janitor said he was “swarmed by an angry mob with rope and duct tape and masks and gloves.” Only two out of at least forty students involved faced long-term discipline. 

There are countless other examples where students have crossed the limits of protected speech—when protests enter the realm of violent disruption—and received little to no punishment. Students have been treated by schools like they have some form of diplomatic immunity. It’s not hard to see how a climate that allows rules to be broken like this can lead some students to think they have carte blanche to engage in explicitly antisemitic acts like preventing Jews from accessing parts of the campus or disrupting history classes while brandishing flyers of a Jewish star being stomped on—behavior Kanye West might call “just another Wednesday afternoon.” 

Antisemitism may simply be the canary in the coal mine, a symptom of the greater problem, when it comes to the current problems with higher education. The pursuit of truth and mediation of differing perspectives has taken a backseat to ideological parity. That needs to change; enforcing the boundaries of protected speech and protest would help with that.

To crack down on antisemitism, the Trump administration should ensure that colleges are following their own policies as outlined in their student handbooks. Students should have every right to peacefully protest, but that right ends when it disrupts other students’ ability to learn. If colleges and universities want federal assistance, they must ensure that campus behavior reflects the restrictions on protected speech as reflected in the judicial precedent. Such a rule would have an outsized influence in protecting Jewish students, as they have often been the victims of violence masquerading as free assembly.

Of course, colleges must enforce their rules on a content-neutral basis. Policies on speech and assembly should apply to any student, regardless of the contents of their speech or political demands. Students who break the rules should be afforded due process rights, and protected speech, however unfavorable, must be allowed.

If campus antisemitism is to be stopped, the existing rules should be enforced—trampling on protected speech is not the answer.

Blake Fox is a member of the class of 2026 and can be reached at bfox@wesleyan.edu.