Universities have become key arenas in national debates over the boundaries of free expression. Using preregistered online survey experiments with a nationally representative sample of 3065 US college students, this study examines how individuals navigate the tension between free speech and harm prevention, an issue sharpened by recent campus protests over Gaza. We test how variation in the severity of speech and the identity of its target (white, Black, Jewish, Muslim, or transgender individuals) shapes judgments about appropriate institutional responses. Our preregistered analyses show that students generally oppose punishing objectionable speech unless it is perceived as highly harmful and that identical statements directed at minority groups elicit stronger punitive responses than those targeting white individuals. Exploratory analyses reveal that these patterns reflect distinct normative principles: Most students adopt a particularist stance, favoring greater protection for marginalized groups, while a sizable minority adhere to a universalist view emphasizing equal treatment regardless of identity. These principles predict attitudes across contexts, but adherence weakens when individuals hold strong views on the issue at hand. Our findings show that campus conflicts over speech boundaries reflect not only disagreement about norms but also unequal application of these norms across groups and issues.
Abramitzky et al. (Wed,) studied this question.