In the midst of campus protests across the nation, the question of how the First Amendment applies to college campuses is a subject of debate. Protesters often assert their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly under the First Amendment, but legal scholars and university administrators argue that such assertions may misinterpret or even defy the true intentions of the amendment.

While public universities are obligated to uphold the First Amendment as part of the government, private universities have the freedom to set their own standards regarding speech and protest. Although private universities tend to be more inclined towards embracing free expression, their policies are driven by principles such as academic freedom and the marketplace of ideas, rather than constitutional law.

Columbia University has been at the center of recent campus protests, attracting an enormous police response. The university's current policy includes regulations such as permissible demonstration zones and mandatory protest preregistration, aimed at ensuring safety while respecting the rights of the university community to speak, study, research, teach, and express their own views. Legal scholars suggest that Columbia, being a private university, faces significantly less legal risk compared to public institutions.

When it comes to regulating speech, both academic administrators and the courts often turn to the "time, place, and manner" doctrine. Under this doctrine, certain logistical details associated with speech can be regulated by the government, as long as it is done in a fair and viewpoint-neutral manner. However, the doctrine does not grant unfettered power to the state over speech, and any regulations must not discriminate against specific viewpoints. This doctrine provides a framework for universities to develop protest policies that can withstand legal scrutiny and political backlash.

Another important test applied when determining the constitutionality of speech is the concept of "imminent lawless action." If speech is intended to provoke an immediate unlawful act, it may not be considered protected under the First Amendment. However, speech that fails to meet this test is protected, even if it may be uncomfortable or distasteful.

Despite the protection of free speech, certain threatening behaviors on campuses can be illegal under federal civil rights law. For instance, in 2014, two individuals who intimidated Black students and employees at the University of Mississippi by placing a noose around a statue of James Meredith, the first Black student to enroll there, pleaded guilty and received prison sentences.

In terms of specific actions during protests, the courts have held that restrictions on activities like overnight camping can be justified under the time, place, and manner test, even on public property. A 1984 Supreme Court ruling supported the National Park Service's decision to refuse protesters' request to spend nights in "symbolic tents" near the White House, stating that such a regulation met the requirements for a reasonable restriction on expression.

While universities have the flexibility to change their policies, public institutions must still adhere to the First Amendment. Private universities, on the other hand, have more autonomy in determining their own rules. President Paul Alivisatos of the University of Chicago acknowledged that encampments violate school rules but suggested that administrators might allow them to remain for a short time to uphold students' expressive rights. However, he emphasized the importance of adhering to university policies and encouraged students to explore alternative methods of communication.

As the debate continues surrounding the interpretation and application of the First Amendment on college campuses, the decisions made by courts and university administrators will ultimately shape the consequences faced by protesters involved in campus turmoil.