Freedom of speech in itself is not a rarefied concept. Yet, recently, people have struggled to determine what constitutes free speech at all. Between Donald Trump’s incendiary post-election remarks, which incited thousands to storm Capitol Hill, and Elon Musk’s divisive decision to reinstate banned accounts on Twitter, many have expressed strong opinions about what others should and shouldn’t be allowed to say.

Now, free speech has re-emerged as an issue that takes center stage on college campuses around the United States. It might seem natural to many that college campuses—spaces meant for debate, education, and the exchange of ideas—are the natural battleground for free speech issues. Indeed, one of America’s most well-known social movements, the Free Speech Movement, took place on UC Berkeley’s campus in the 60s. Fighting then for their rights to freedom of political and religious activity, students were emboldened to organize demonstrations that led to the eventual dissolution of restrictions on free speech. But amidst a growing political divide, issues today that are part of the free speech debate have been subject to exceeding partisanship and hostility.

The University of Chicago has long since been regarded as a stalwart patron of free speech. Its famous Chicago Statement, drafted in 2014, cemented the institution’s “[commitment] to free and open inquiry in all matters.” Tensions to do with free speech escalated in June, however, when a lecturer faced backlash for their seminar titled “The Problem of Whiteness.” Dr. Rebecca Journey received online harassment and hate mail after Daniel Schmidt, a student enrolled in her anthropology seminar, tweeted, “Anti-white hatred is now mainstream academic inquiry.” Mr. Schmidt’s actions, though censured by faculty on campus, were not met with formal repercussions from the university.

Increasingly, universities have struggled to define the boundaries of free speech. And while the University of Chicago lent its full support to Dr. Journey and her seminar (which eventually began a quarter-semester late), there’s also something to be said about the institution’s refusal to reprimand Mr. Schmidt. Free speech, by nature, opens up conversations on important issues to polarizing perspectives—perspectives that are valuable, insofar as they promote further discussion and understanding between different factions. Although Mr. Schmidt may not have spoken out of malice, the harmful effects of his comments nearly prevented Dr. Journey from commencing her seminar.

What we must understand about free speech is its purpose: to create a space for constructive discourse, where every person feels acknowledged and heard regardless of their political standing. When free speech starts to border on persecution and the censorship of others, it betrays this very principle. Granted, how a university chooses to regulate free speech is within its own right; but the promulgation of universities’ decisions will affect whether free speech is preserved on college campuses for years to come.