Distinguishing Between Public and Private Institutions
Public universities must follow First Amendment protections, allowing students to express thoughts without censorship. This covers:
- Speech
- Writing
- Symbolic actions (e.g., clothing or protests)
Restrictions are minimal, mainly to prevent major disruptions.
Private universities create their own speech policies. They can restrict expression more than public schools, potentially disciplining students for protected speech at public institutions.
California's Leonard Law is an exception, prohibiting private, non-religious universities there from punishing students for First Amendment-protected speech. This gives students at these schools similar protections to public universities.
The government may push both public and private institutions toward broader speech protections. The ACLU advocates that speech restrictions should address actions, not speech itself, arguing more speech combats offensive views better than censorship.

Formation and Rights of Student Groups
Public universities can't deny recognition to student groups based on controversial views. All groups get equal chances to function, communicate, and receive funding. Denying resources to recognized groups violates First Amendment protections.
Private universities have more freedom to set group policies based on their values. They can choose which groups to recognize, sometimes restricting controversial views.
California's Leonard Law protects student groups at private, non-religious universities there, giving them similar rights as public school groups.
Recent legislation like the Students Bill of Rights Act aims to protect student speech nationwide, emphasizing:
- Neutral funding
- Fair treatment of campus speakers

Speech and Protest Regulations
Public universities allow protests and symbolic speech under the First Amendment. They can impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to prevent substantial disruptions.
Private universities have more freedom to set speech rules reflecting their values, except in California under the Leonard Law.
Key doctrines:
- "Substantial disruption" doctrine: Lets public schools regulate speech causing significant campus disruptions, but not merely offensive speech.
- "Heckler's veto" rule: Requires universities to protect controversial speakers rather than banning them due to potential hostile reactions.
Private universities outside California have more discretion in regulating speech and protests based on their ethos.

Consequences and Protections for Controversial Speech
Public universities must protect a wide range of speech, including controversial views. Students have due process rights before disciplinary action. Even deeply offensive speech is often protected unless it's targeted harassment, threats, or incitement.
"Fighting words" that could provoke immediate violence aren't protected, but this applies narrowly to face-to-face confrontations.
Private universities have more discretion but must follow their own conduct codes. California's Leonard Law requires private, non-religious universities there to uphold similar speech protections as public schools.
Recent federal policy emphasizes protecting campus speech. Students should know the difference between protected speech and unprotected conduct like harassment or threats.
Understanding legal protections and campus policies helps students assert viewpoints within bounds while universities balance free speech and campus order.
Public universities must follow First Amendment protections, while private schools set their own policies. California's Leonard Law is an exception for private, non-religious universities there. Knowing these differences helps students handle their campus rights.
- Chemerinsky E, Gillman H. Free Speech on Campus. Yale University Press; 2017.
- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Guide to Free Speech on Campus. FIRE; 2020.
- Hudson D. Let the Students Speak!: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools. Beacon Press; 2011.