In the wake of the recent campus occupations, there seems to be an emerging public consensus that the root of university administrators’ difficulties lies in the inherent challenge of maintaining campus safety while simultaneously preserving students’ rights to free speech. Although this struggle may feel real for many campus leaders, it need not be so difficult: Indeed, some university presidents have found it relatively easy to support both civil and constitutional rights. With students’ futures, institutional reputations, and the careers of university leaders at stake, it is both the wise and moral choice to follow these examples.

For instance, Andrew D. Martin, the chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis, released a statement where he explicitly forbade any entity from using campus space “to establish encampments to promote any political or social agenda.” He concluded his statement by addressing the protesters directly: “You will not do this here.”

Meanwhile, the University of Florida, led by President Ben Sasse, posted flyers around campus with lists of both accepted and prohibited activities the protesters could engage in. The flyers go on to state that students found engaging in prohibited activities “will receive a three-year trespass and suspension,” while employees “will be trespassed and separated from employment.”

So why are so many college presidents having such a hard time when it is clearly quite possible to both protect Jewish students and faculty from having their civil rights violated while still ensuring strong protections for speech, protest, and other forms of expression?

The truth is that many institutional leaders seem to be taking bad advice from a narrow band of the ideological spectrum that is far more sympathetic than the general public to even the very worst actions of campus occupiers.

A recent article in The New Yorker, for instance, asserted as fact that “the members of Congress who grilled [Columbia President Minouche] Shafik want universities to punish demonstrators precisely because the government cannot.” If this is reflective of the broader mindset among college presidents, it is no wonder many are failing so miserably both in Congressional testimony and in their handling of campus disruptions.

In truth, presidents are being hauled before Congress because they are permitting rampant antisemitism in ways that may violate federal law. Outside of the small slice of ideologues promulgating this stance, most Americans are genuinely upset about this, and presidents would be wise to ignore those who equate condemning antisemitism with promoting censorship.

Here is what university leaders should do instead:

First, if there is any instance of antisemitism on your campus, condemn it loudly, without “both sides” rhetoric. If white supremacists were occupying your campus and harassing black students, how would you react? If you think these cases are any different, you may need to take a long look in the mirror.

Second, prove your commitment to free speech for everyone. Adopt the Chicago Statement or something similar, unequivocal principles in support of free expression. Then comes the hard part: You must ensure that those principles are fairly applied to all groups, across the ideological spectrum. Unless you have a strong record of standing up for unpopular liberal and conservative speech, you will not be viewed as credible when you use the First Amendment as a justification for failing to prevent menacing mobs from denying minority groups access to educational opportunities.

Third, set a clear line on encampments and other zero-sum disruptions. An encampment is an attempt to take over a portion of campus and prevent opponents from accessing it based on the way they look, worship, or think. They disrupt basic university functions and prevent institutions from delivering the services they are paid to provide. Stop them early and these problems can be easily avoided.

Fourth, stop prioritizing political activism over academic rigor. Whether through politically tinged course requirements, hiring practices, or admissions, emphasizing activism (especially when it tends to skew to one side of the political spectrum) is a recipe for inviting disruptions and losing political and public confidence.

Finally, college presidents should regularly engage with trusted voices with differing viewpoints and invite such people to campus. One thing these recent protests have revealed is the extent to which people of opposing viewpoints lack opportunities to learn from one another. Aggressive and hateful demonstrations are not conducive to that, nor is fostering a campus culture where many feel the need to self-censor. Intellectual diversity must start at the top.

Unless college presidents begin to take antisemitism more seriously, they will continue their struggle to credibly protect both civil and constitutional rights. The result will be a continued erosion of political capital and public trust. If they continue on this course, many may soon be looking for a new post and struggling to understand why.

The post University Presidents: Heed the Advice You’re Getting on Antisemitism at Your Peril appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.