A new Texas state law is restricting protests on college campuses following a demonstration for Palestine at the University of Texas at Austin. The new law places limitations on when and how students may protest, including restrictions on when protests may take place, on concealing one’s identity, on using sound amplifiers, and on lowering American flags.
The legislation does not altogether ban demonstrations, but it introduces many boundaries that students and protestors could argue discourage student activism and impede freedom of expression on campuses.
The heart of the debate lies between the balance of public safety and constitutional freedoms. Those who proposed the law claim its purpose is to ensure student safety and campus order, arguing that unregulated protests can pose a danger and disrupt campus life.
Those who support the law believe universities should be places of learning and that it is not silencing speech but instead maintaining peace.
However, opponents of the law argue that the restrictions impede one of higher education’s core values: the freedom of expression.
Critics argue that this law can silence students’ voices, particularly those who support minority viewpoints. Limiting face coverings may make students more afraid of consequences, and during times when protests can take place, it may mean fewer students receive the message.
The University of Texas is a state institution and, therefore, directly bound by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This means that any restrictions on student speech must comply with constitutional standards.
State laws often face legal challenges, as courts make it difficult to limit them without a substantial reason, such as safety. Because of this guard, Texas lawmakers had to draft the law in a way that appears to limit the time, place, and manner of protests rather than their content. This distinction is often what determines whether laws withstand judicial scrutiny.
In contrast, Moravian University is a private institution and operates under different legal conditions. Private universities are not directly bound by the First Amendment as public universities are.
Instead, they have the freedom to establish their own policies regarding free expression and protest, which students agree to upon enrollment. That said, private universities can impose stricter rules on demonstrations without state law and without facing legal challenges.
For instance, Moravian University may ban outdoor protests, restrict speech it considers disruptive, or require approval for any demonstrations. Students at private universities must rely more on the institution’s internal policies rather than the Constitution.
While the Texas law may influence other universities to take similar positions, it is unlikely that private universities will feel direct pressure to adopt identical policies.
The intense backlash toward the law, from students, staff, and organizations, suggests that the affected community views it as an unnecessary barrier to speech rather than a means to foster safety. Nonetheless, the law sets a precedent that could inspire other states to consider similar measures, especially where campus protests have been politicized.
Ultimately, the question remains whether limiting protests actually provides safety rather than merely suppressing speech. Universities have historically been places where these difficult conversations take place and social movements begin.
Restricting this space risks altering the very purpose of higher education: to encourage discussion and engagement. While campus safety is undeniably important, achieving this by limiting student expression may not be the most effective or fair path. A balanced approach may require open dialogue between students and lawmakers or administrators, collaboratively set protest limits, and a commitment to ensuring that safety measures do not limit student voices.
