In the New York Times, Greg Lukianoff, who works at an education-related think tank, argues that American colleges are doing more to suppress free speech than to promote it.

Since the 1980s, in part because of “political correctness” concerns about racially insensitive speech and sexual harassment, and in part because of the dramatic expansion in the ranks of nonfaculty campus administrators, colleges have enacted stringent speech codes. These codes are sometimes well intended but, outside of the ivory tower, would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. From protests and rallies to displays of posters and flags, students have been severely constrained in their ability to demonstrate their beliefs. The speech codes are at times intended to enforce civility, but they often backfire, suppressing free expression instead of allowing for open debate of controversial issues.

Here’s a thought: Why not delete that phrase “political correctness”? At this point, it’s implicitly disdainful and the sentence reads more fairly and more accurately if it just says “…because of concerns about racially insensitive speech and sexual harassment.”

But as to the merits of the argument: Lukianoff says his group has studied 392 such codes, which is a lot more than I’ve studied. Some of his examples—like when colleges condone demonstrations to a “free speech zone,” and require students to apply for permits—are pretty disturbing. (We live with the same infringement of constitutional rights here in New York City under Mayor Bloomberg; c.f. the 2008 Republican convention, et al.)

Some examples are a slam dunk:

Some elite colleges in particular have Orwellian speech codes that are so vague and broad that they would never pass constitutional muster at state-financed universities. Harvard is a particularly egregious example. Last year, incoming Harvard freshmen were pressured by campus officials to sign an oath promising to act with “civility” and “inclusiveness” and affirming that “kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment.” Harry R. Lewis, a computer science professor and a former dean of Harvard College, was quick to criticize the oath. “For Harvard to ‘invite’ people to pledge to kindness is unwise, and sets a terrible precedent,” he wrote on his blog. “It is a promise to control one’s thoughts.”

Of course, that kindness vow was astonishingly idiotic, and whoever implemented it should probably be fired for lacking a basic understanding of what a university stands for. “Kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment”—that is truly cottage-cheese thinking. That said, it took some guts for Harry Lewis to stand up against “kindness,” which is the way that defenders of the vow probably framed the position. Or maybe just some exasperation.

Then there’s Yale:

In 2009, Yale banned students from making a T-shirt with an F. Scott Fitzgerald quotation — “I think of all Harvard men as sissies,” from his 1920 novel “This Side of Paradise” — to mock Harvard at their annual football game. The T-shirt was blocked after some gay and lesbian students argued that “sissies” amounted to a homophobic slur. “What purports to be humor by targeting a group through slurs is not acceptable,” said Mary Miller, a professor of art history and the dean of Yale College.

This is a bit trickier, because in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s day, the term “sissies” did indeed refer to homosexuals, and it really wouldn’t do to have a bunch of Yale students wearing t-shirts that call a bunch of Harvard men fags.

On the other hand, it is a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald, and in this ironic context—we’re insulting you in a learned way!—it probably wouldn’t have a homophobic connotation.

Perhaps more importantly, in my opinion, students have the right to call each other fags if they want to. It’s not very nice and I wouldn’t recommend it, but that’s the way freedom of speech works sometimes. You’re not always going to like what people say, but they have the right to say whatever they want. Or they should.

So: I’m not entirely convinced by Lukianoff’s larger conclusion that colleges en masse are discouraging free speech, but it does seem plausible that some, maybe even many, colleges are creating the idea that speech which offends people can be regulated, and that’s just nuts.