After a significant surge in campus protests in the spring of 2024, universities across the country are methodically revising and reinforcing their policies concerning student demonstrations. According to some, these new restrictions have begun to blur the line between campus security measures and restriction of free speech.

Student protests first began to grow in number and in intensity when war broke out between Israel and Palestine in October of 2023. Activity escalated again after April 17th, 2024, when Columbia University responded to a peaceful Gaza Solidarity Encampment by authorizing the NYPD to enter the campus and arrest more than 100 students.

Campus administrators across the U.S. have struggled to shoulder this new wave of student activism. Throughout the spring, thousands of campus arrests were made, and videos of police violence against peaceful protestors circulated the internet. Now, hoping to avoid a repeat of this violence and distress as the new school year begins, a significant number of universities have placed heftier restrictions on protests, ranging from time and location limitations to bans on particular forms of demonstration.

Among the many schools that have restricted the time of day that students are permitted to protest are Ohio State University, Northwestern University, Rutgers University, and Franklin & Marshall College. At Indiana University, students and professors intentionally held a vigil in violation of the school’s schedule-based restrictions. They are now facing disciplinary action.

Similarly, schools like Princeton University, Tufts University, and James Madison University have now prohibited demonstrations in specific areas; on-campus community spaces like quads and greens are most often subject to these types of restrictions.

Meanwhile, Carnegie Mellon University’s new policy requires protestors to register at least three business days in advance and allows its administration to break up unregistered protests that have attracted at least 25 individuals. Rutgers has adopted a similar permit policy; however, spontaneous gatherings are tolerated, provided a notification form is filled out and a staff member consulted.

Along with Emory University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Northeastern University, the University of Virginia, New York University (NYU), and several others, Rutgers has also instated a ban on encampments, a form of long-term protest most frequently used by pro-Palestinian demonstrators on college campuses. Other enduring methods of protest— including chalking, which can be difficult to scrub away—have also been suppressed at some universities.

NYU has also prohibited specific language that it believes may violate its nondiscrimination policies.

As these protest limitations grow stricter, students and faculty alike have fought back against suppression of speech. Steve Levitsky, one of five Harvard University professors who wrote on the school’s grounds in protest of a potential new ban on chalking, argues that the rule “[goes] too far in restricting students’ free expression.” The updated policy, if finalized, would also ban unapproved displays or lighting projections, prohibit disruption of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and require gatherings to be held by a “designated Harvard affiliate or affiliate group sponsor.”

Harvard, however, claims in its draft policy that it “has an obligation to adopt rules and policies that simultaneously protect and facilitate the use of the University’s private property,” and that the new rules aim to “foster the well-being of community members and to preserve these resources for future generations” by prioritizing safety and security.

Meanwhile, at Vanderbilt University, campus administrators have aimed to provide an open and equitable space for student activism; the school’s intention is to allow peaceful protestors to speak freely, regardless of their stance. However, in March, a group of protestors injured a security guard in their efforts to stage a takeover, and the university shut them down in a matter of hours. It has made its commitment to neutrality clear; administrators will continue to create space for all voices, but violence will not be tolerated.

Technically, the first amendment does not apply to private institutions. But universities have always been a focal point for youth activism and political demonstrations, and, for many, witnessing the regulation of protests is painful and disappointing. To attempt to restrict anyone’s freedom to peacefully protest is to undermine the very principles of protest and civil disobedience, too, and will continue to breed dissent with no outlet for meaningful dialogue.

The line between protection and restriction is a thin one. It’s unclear whether universities will be able to walk it.