"The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive..."

"... including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech. At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled 'harassment.' Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected. Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards...."

From "A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia/Eugene Volokh, Michael C. Dorf, David Cole, and 15 other scholars/The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing First Amendment–protected speech" (NYRB).