When it comes to First Amendment rights, Pitt and CMU walk a tightrope
“It’s not only a bad thing to suppress what is considered free speech,” he said, “but you also cannot compel people to speak in a way that would offend their own viewpoints.
Colleges and universities across the country must maintain a delicate balance: Guard the First Amendment rights of students and staff while protecting the security of marginalized groups from rhetoric and actions that can feel threatening.
Both Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh recently have been forced to confront First Amendment issues.
Pitt had to contend with an anti-Israel encampment outside the Cathedral of Learning, and later, defend in federal court its decision to suspend the local chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. CMU has dealt with inflammatory messages painted on its Fence, a spot traditionally open to free expression with no regulations.
“A public university is bound by the First Amendment, and they have to be careful about the kinds of regulations they impose,” said Bruce Antkowiak, a former federal prosecutor, who has taught at Duquesne University and St. Vincent College, including courses on Constitutional law. “Private universities are not bound by the First Amendment, but they have to be careful about the type of regulations they impose.”
While colleges and universities can impose some regulations on speech, Antkowiak said they also must protect academic freedom. The issue often pertains to faculty, but Antkowiak said it’s even more important for students.
“These are people who are at a point where they should be looking and challenging traditional views they may have adopted from their parents,” he said. “They are about to enter the body politic of the country and they should be able to articulate and examine positions as part of a growing and evolving democracy.”
For educational institutions, the theory of time, place and manner are factors often used to determine how to regulate speech.
Put simply, one has the right to hold an opinion and may have the freedom to express that opinion on a college campus, but one does not have the right to disrupt a class, make threats or damage property.
A college, Antkowiak said, has the responsibility to ensure its facilities are used for the legitimate purposes for which they were created.
The University of Pittsburgh maintains a website dedicated to detailing its freedom of speech policies.
Students and student organizations at Pitt have the right to engage in peaceful, orderly and nondestructive demonstrations, but they must ensure the safety and respect of all individuals on campus. The demonstrations can’t disrupt the educational process or infringe on the rights of other members of the university community.
Pitt utilizes time, place and manner considerations when deciding what types of restrictions it imposes, which are “generally put in place to allow for the continued operation of the university,” according to the website. “Examples of these restrictions could include limits on noise levels, space and occupancy restrictions, or limits on early-morning and late-night demonstrations.”
CMU’s freedom of expression policy is also available online.
The university, which updated its policy earlier this year, said it has “a longstanding and deep-rooted commitment to upholding (freedom of expression) and its companion of academic freedom on our campus. These are core values of our institution and to the success of higher education.”
In addition to requiring groups to schedule events, CMU also uses time, place and manner considerations when deciding if an event is permitted.
“The university may restrict the length or time of day of an event to avoid interference with core education or administrative functions. Likewise, the university may weigh several factors of an event, such as the size, time and technical needs, in designating the appropriate location for it to occur,” the site explains.
Pitt was forced to defend its regulation of activities after it said an SJP event held at the Hillman Library violated its student code of conduct. Following a disciplinary hearing, the student group wrote an open letter to university officials and the hearing officers adjudicating the case. Pitt suspended the group, claiming the communication was improper.
The American Civil Liberties Union took up SJP’s case, arguing in federal court that the group’s First Amendment rights were violated. The ACLU won the case and SJP’s suspension was ultimately overturned.
CMU’s updated freedom of expression policy has come under fire by critics who aren’t happy that demonstrations must now be scheduled and events must be registered with the university.
Some groups have also criticized the private university’s attempts to balance messages painted on the Fence, which has served as a vehicle for various anti-Israel and anti-Zionist messages in recent years.
When President Donald Trump visited the school to attend Sen. Dave McCormick’s inaugural Pennsylvania Energy and Innovation Summit, students painted the Fence with the message “No rapists on our campus.”
CMU President Farnam Jahanian said the message “crossed a line” and the university painted over the message and suspending access to the campus landmark.
While students were eventually granted access to the Fence, some students were displeased with the suspension of activity at the site and the university’s updated freedom of expression policy.
Since Trump’s most recent election, universities also have grappled with issues related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Trump administration has used Title VI as a means to force schools to regulate antisemitic speech on campus.
Pitt, which has had some of its federal funding cut and partially restored, said it takes its obligations “seriously” to address bias and discrimination, including speech that constitutes harassment or creates a hostile environment for learning and working.
“When we receive any report — including anonymously — about speech which may have become harassing or is possibly creating a hostile environment, our Office of Institutional Engagement & Wellbeing and our Office of Compliance, Investigation and Ethics respond quickly. We evaluate the content and context of the speech to determine whether the views being expressed are protected by the First Amendment,” university spokesperson Jared Stonesifer said.
CMU, too, said it adheres to Title VI.
Outside of the possible loss of accreditation or funding, Antkowiak said that universities work to follow Title VI.
“It’s not only a bad thing to suppress what is considered free speech,” he said, “but you also cannot compel people to speak in a way that would offend their own viewpoints. That’s the other side of that coin.”
It’s a fine line for a university like Pitt, which owns large swaths of public property that is often used for protests.
In 2024, a group of pro-Palestinian protestors encamped on the campus outside the Cathedral of Learning. The protestors left after Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey and Allegheny County Executive Sara Innamorato interceded. Several people were arrested.
Antkowiak said universities can restrict access to public areas, especially if a demonstration would prevent reasonable access to or disturb the campus.
Some Jewish students expressed concern over the 2024 encampment and what they felt were borderline antisemitic messages expressed there. Antkowiak said it doesn’t pay for a university to isolate any group of students.
“Students are the lifeblood of an institution,” he said. “You might get money from the state, but if you aren’t bringing in tuition dollars, they aren’t going to last very long.”
For that reason, he said, it behooves a university to not allow students to harass or threaten one another.
It’s a concern for both Pitt and CMU.
Cassia Crogan, CMU’s director of media relations, said that “Carnegie Mellon has asserted many times that hate, including antisemitism, has no place within our community. We work across the institution to build a safe climate for Jewish students so they may thrive and feel supported.”
Pitt, too, feels a “genuine and sincere obligation to ensure all of our students feel safe at the University,” Stonesifer said.
With respect to physical safety, he said, “Pitt works closely with local Jewish organizations, campus groups, and law enforcement agencies at the local, state and federal levels to ensure a coordinated and responsive approach.”
He noted that the university police provide security escorts for Jewish students, faculty and staff attending religious services, as well as security support for Chabad at Pitt and Hillel Jewish University Center.
“Pitt has also demonstrated a strong commitment to combating antisemitism through education and training, offering multiple sessions in partnership with organizations like the American Jewish Committee and StandWithUs,” tonesifer said.
The university also created an antisemitic working group.
Despite its work to ensure all groups feel safe, Pitt has faced challenges. In the 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, Pitt received an F grade and ranked 219th out of 257 institutions.
CMU doesn’t fare much better. It, too, received an F grade but ranked 98th out of the 257 institutions ranked.
Nevertheless, both Pitt and CMU have tried to find the balance between protecting free speech and making marginalized groups of students feel safe and secure.
Ultimately, Antkowiak said, the First Amendment on university campuses should act “like a crucible where all ideas get thrown in and bounce off each other and where we, as rational people, can ultimately see what the best ideas are.” PJC
David Rullo can be reached at drullo@pittsburghjewishchronicle.
comments