I’m catching heat for defending people I’ve long criticized, but that’s the point: free speech must be consistent, even when the target is unpopular. This piece looks at the uproar over former Northwestern president Morton Schapiro being disinvited from Georgetown Law’s commencement, the hypocrisy on campus speech, and how universities keep folding to mobs while claiming to champion inclusion. I’ll argue that canceling Schapiro reveals the deeper rot in higher education’s tolerance for dissent.
I’ll be blunt: defending Schapiro feels awkward because I have criticized his tenure at Northwestern for enabling speech policing. Even so, the principle matters more than personal grievances. If conservatives only defend free speech when the speaker matches our views, then we have already lost the argument.
Schapiro was picked to speak at a law school ceremony and the reaction was immediate and savage. Students and faculty labeled him “Zionist” and demanded he step down, arguing he had no connection to the school and held “controversial, Zionist, and harmful opinions.” That kind of public shaming now decides who gets to address graduates.
The irony is thick. Schapiro publicly denounced “absolute” free speech positions while president and backed policies that treated certain speech as assault. His leadership helped normalize shutting down voices labeled microaggressive, which made campus life quieter only for disagreement. Yet when the mob turns its sights on him, many of those same enablers are nowhere to be found.
Universities have turned commencement platforming into an ideological reward ceremony. The guest lists lean predictably left, and the messages often double as political sermons. When administrations curate speakers to reinforce a political brand, they teach students that power is the point, not the marketplace of ideas.
There’s an ugly double standard at play. Past speakers without a legal tie to the school drew no protests, but Schapiro’s support for Israel made him a target. Being Jewish and pro-Israel is suddenly framed as a disqualifying political identity rather than a set of beliefs worthy of debate. That’s not pluralism; it’s a loyalty test.
The petition campaign against Schapiro wanted him gone because of his views, not because of any misconduct or inability to speak. Campus mobs now demand ideological purity as a precondition for participation in civic rituals. That posture corrodes respect for disagreement and teaches students to weaponize outrage instead of reason.
Schapiro replied to campus leaders with a calm, measured statement: “I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean, and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities. I wish the law school graduates the best of luck in the days ahead.” That was dignity under pressure, exactly the tone a commencement should honor.
Of course, his withdrawal also followed the very concession culture he once encouraged. Administrations that reflexively bow to student outrage train protesters to expect victory. The result is administrators who preempt controversy rather than standing up for core academic values.
One teachable example from his tenure comes from a Northwestern sociology class where a professor invited an ICE representative and an undocumented person to discuss immigration. Students organized to stop the conversation, shouting “F**k ICE” outside the hall. The dean told protesters they could attend if they promised not to disrupt, and the class was ultimately shut down.
That episode showed how fragile campus discourse has become: balanced dialogue was treated as a provocation, and the university prioritized appeasement over intellectual rigor. Professors who try to present multiple sides now risk cancellation or worse, the cancellation of the discourse itself. That climate is the real scandal.
Now that Schapiro is facing cancellation, the lesson is straightforward. If you erode the norms that protect speech when it hurts, you also erode protections when it benefits you. Campus activists who celebrate shutting down opponents will one day find the radar pointing back at them, because revolutions eat their own.
Conservatives should push back hard but fairly: defend free expression even for those you disagree with, and demand institutions uphold the principle rather than placate the loudest faction. Universities must stop treating commencements and classrooms like ideological stages and start treating them like places where ideas are tested, not censored.
Ending with a call to action feels out of place for a commencement notice, so here’s the plain truth: if the academy keeps folding to pressure campaigns, it will hollow out the very mission it claims to serve. That should worry everyone who cares about honest debate and the future of civic life.
