From “Coddling” to Crackdown: What Do We Really Want from Universities?

Written by: Maya Radwan and Allison Ralph

Colleges and universities have long been places where new ideas are born, challenged, and reimagined—often by young people engaged in intense debate over what kind of society they want to help create. Historically, campuses have played dual roles: engines of social change and sites of moral and intellectual development for students. This tension has made them powerful but also perennially contested spaces. 

In recent decades, as polarization in the broader culture has deepened, universities have come under increasingly divergent pressures around speech and expression. On one side, student-led movements have demanded that institutions take stronger ethical stands—removing speakers, content, or traditions perceived as harmful. On the other, lawmakers and donors have pushed back against what they view as ideological overreach, targeting certain kinds of activism and educational frameworks. 

This isn’t new—debates about what should be taught, who should speak, and how campuses shape civic values have always been with us. But the stakes feel higher now. From accusations of “cancel culture” against the left to political crackdowns on protests from the right, today’s disputes often reflect deeper disagreements about what kind of moral vision universities are supposed to uphold. 

So what should we actually want from them? This piece explores how institutions can navigate these cross-pressures—not by choosing sides in culture wars, but by investing in dialogue, cultivating moral courage, and building campuses where activism and intellectual engagement can coexist. 

___________________________

For much of the last decade, universities were under fire for supposedly insulating students from the real world. Books like The Coddling of the American Mind (2018) argued that students had become too fragile, unwilling to engage with difficult ideas, and too quick to demand that universities shield them from offensive speech. There were high-profile controversies—speakers being protested or disinvited, students objecting to curriculum content, and institutions implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies that some saw as enforcing ideological conformity. 

In response, there was a major push to “restore” free speech on campuses. Several states passed laws requiring universities to allow a full range of viewpoints, banning restrictive speech codes, and even eliminating DEI programs to prevent what critics called left-wing orthodoxy. The message was clear: universities should be places where students encounter challenging ideas, even if they find them offensive. 

But now, just a few years later, some criticism has flipped. Instead of demanding that universities allow more speech and debate, some critics are now insisting that schools do more to control students—specifically, when those students engage in activism that challenges political narratives they support. 

In recent months, the consequences of campus protests have escalated sharply. Columbia University has had federal funding pulled over concerns related to antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests, while other schools have been threatened with similar action. At the same time, student activists—some of them international students—have been arrested or faced deportation for their involvement in campus protests.  

This issue isn’t unique to one political side. Historically, both the left and right have, at different times, sought to regulate campus speech and activism when it didn’t align with their own priorities. From efforts to cancel conservative speakers to today’s government intervention against pro-Palestinian activism, universities have long been battlegrounds for competing visions of what kind of speech should be protected. 

What Can Universities Do? Learning from Bridging Models 

While much of the focus has been on what universities should or shouldn’t suppress, there’s another way to look at this: What if the issue isn’t about control at all, but about how campuses facilitate conversation in the first place? 

Legally, only public universities are required to uphold First Amendment protections around speech and protest. Private institutions like Columbia or Harvard aren’t bound by the same legal obligations, though most voluntarily adopt internal policies that affirm the value of free expression. Whether mandated by law or guided by mission, universities across the board must grapple with how to respond when activism tests the boundaries of community norms, order, and institutional priorities.  

Student protests are nothing new. From civil rights sit-ins to anti-war demonstrations to calls for divestment from apartheid South Africa, activism has often forced institutions to confront issues they might otherwise ignore. Disruption, in many ways, is part of the point. It creates urgency, demands action, and ensures that grievances are not easily dismissed. 

One of the fundamental reasons students turn to protest is a belief that other avenues—discussions, petitions, and formal advocacy—are not leading to meaningful change. When students feel unheard, protest becomes a tool to force attention onto an issue. 

This presents a challenge for universities. On one side, many institutions, especially public ones, must protect students’ rights to speak and protest. On the other, they face external pressure to take action, often from political groups, lawmakers, and donors who view certain protests as disruptive or politically charged. Universities are often caught in the middle, navigating competing demands from students, faculty, external stakeholders, and policymakers. 

While universities should not prevent protest, some have found success in ensuring that activism does not escalate into cycles of suppression and reaction. One way they have done this is through structured dialogue and bridging programs—initiatives that bring students together across ideological and political divides, creating space for difficult conversations before tensions reach a breaking point. 

Research suggests that campuses with programs designed to encourage engagement between opposing viewpoints experience fewer conflicts. This isn’t because students avoid tough conversations, but because they have structured ways to engage before protests escalate into all-or-nothing standoffs. A recent report by the Aspen Institute, Transforming Conflict on College Campuses, offers a useful framework. It highlights how institutions can take a conflict transformation approach, moving beyond managing crises to building long-term cultures of dialogue and trust. Key recommendations include engaging students early and consistently—not just during outbreaks of protest—and ensuring administrators are trained in navigating complex, emotionally charged conversations. The report stresses that “pre-existing dialogue infrastructure” is critical for resilience. In fact, there’s emerging evidence that universities with robust dialogue programs in place before the October 7 conflict experienced fewer violent or disruptive incidents on campus afterward.  

We see this borne out in real-world examples. Middlebury College, for instance, responded to the war in Israel and Gaza not with top-down directives, but through a multi-part educational approach that included public lectures, small-group discussions, faculty-led events, and student forums. Their framing emphasized inquiry, critical reflection, and shared values—sending a signal that complexity and disagreement were not only allowed but necessary. 

Similarly, the Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton documented several case studies in which campus leaders chose to negotiate directly with protesters, creating space for mutual understanding and de-escalation. One example highlighted university leaders collaborating with local religious and community organizations to mediate protest encampments—avoiding law enforcement involvement and reducing tension. 

This isn’t about avoiding conflict—it’s about transforming how it’s handled. Programs like Braver Angels, Living Room Conversations, UCLA’s Dialogue Across Difference, and Arizona State University’s Civic Discourse Project provide ongoing opportunities for students to engage across ideological lines. Regular participation in structured dialogue increases trust, reduces polarization, and builds student agency. Importantly, these efforts aren’t about “both-sides-ing” injustice. They’re about creating space where students can challenge one another constructively, rather than falling into cycles of outrage and shutdown.  

These approaches don’t eliminate activism—nor should they. Protest is often a powerful catalyst for change. But when supported by a culture of structured dialogue, it becomes part of a healthier ecosystem—one where student dissent is not automatically seen as a disruption to manage, but as a reflection of civic engagement that deserves space and response. Dialogue doesn’t dilute protest; it grounds it, helping campuses respond with deliberation instead of reflex. 

In a moment where universities are being pulled in every direction—by students, donors, lawmakers, and media—those that invest in open, ongoing engagement are better positioned to navigate conflict with integrity. Such dialogues can be a bit of an escape valve. It’s not about choosing between coddling or crackdowns. It’s about building institutions strong enough to hold complexity—and wise enough to vent the pressure before it boils over.