Speech classified as “intentional infliction of emotional distress” has to be in some sense gratuitous and serving no valid social or communicative purpose.
FIRE offers recommendations for better, constitutional reforms which aim to safeguard free expression and academic freedom while ensuring that Title VI grievances are addressed through fair, consistent, and transparent institutional processes.
To protect campus speech, these policies must be content-neutral, leave open other avenues for expression, and be narrowly tailored toward a significant university interest — such as preventing substantial disruption to campus operations.
Rather than applying a blanket identification requirement that chills protected expression, campus law enforcement should seek the identification of those who violate university policies or the law.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act already provides a legal basis for institutions to protect Jewish students from discrimination based on ethnicity or national origin, without endorsing a formal definition that risks conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
Universities have an obligation to provide as much security as necessary to protect students and faculty engaging in peaceful expression, regardless of their viewpoint.
The First Amendment protects academic freedom from government interference, including the right of private universities to determine who teaches, what is taught, and how it is taught.
