If a university participates in regulated speech, embarrass them. Book the closest public venue to the campus, put in place the required security to protect against thugs—and then hold the event. Obviously, the event is publicized in a way that draws attention to the lack of freedom of thought at the nearby institution. Draw the crowd that the event merits.

John Leo's excellent critique of college speech codes chronicles only a part of our loss of our First Amendment rights to free speech. Equally chilling are the "hostile work environment" laws that prevent comments that might hurt a co-worker's feelings.

Nowhere in our constitution is there the right to not have our feelings hurt. This was not accidental. The framers actually understood that the right to say almost anything (except "fire" in a theater) keeps us away from the slippery slope of being able to say nothing at all.

Regarding free speech on campus: I recall the forming meeting at a local Catholic college for a major or concentration in feminist studies. I asked why a priest's (extremely popular) course on sexuality was not included as a course for which one could get credit for this concentration. The leader of the group said: Maybe we don't agree with the priest and the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, a course on feminism and sexuality had as a required course a strange book on sex by Foucault, a strange person cited by Stanley Kurtz (writing on Leo's essay) as a contemporary force against free inquiry. And one member of the committee who worked in the library, having failed to get the head of the library to remove from the reserve shelf (where it was spotlighted as something students might want to read) an article critical of feminist studies, tried to get the committee to petition the library to have that item removed from the reserve shelf. An act of insubordination against the library head in the name of speech repression.

Excellent article. One group you didn't mention and who are becoming major players in this fight are the alumni. Up to recently they were relatively powerless because they got their information late and reacted mainly as individuals. This is no longer true. The internet provides instant information exchange and the ability to mobilize reaction. And University presidents listen to them. They give universities what they value most, money.

Recent issues at Yale, Dartmouth and Columbia were addressed when heavy alumni pressure was brought to bear. Thanks to writers like you and John Fund, those who are outside of the day to day operation of universities can make their prescence known.

One of the reasons I departed academe was the horror I felt when realizing that my professors were trying to dictate what I should think. One professor forbade me to write an essay on Ayn Rand's works because "She's too selfish." My grad school advisors refused my thesis proposal on Edgar Allan Poe because I did not accept the premise that his alcohol/drug problems made him a great writer (e.g., the artist must suffer to be brilliant). I was not about to sell out to the thought police.

I'm waiting until my daughter goes to college (in 10 years) before I return to study for a Ph.D. I don't ever expect to use the degree for monetary gain, as I'll be 60 by the time I finish. But I'll be free to express my ideas—and fight for them—without fearing for my future. Isn't that pitiful?