Universities that have failed to fulfill their obligations in this area can no longer do so, according to the White House fact sheet about the order, which emphasizes the goal of bolstering anti-discrimination measures and guaranteeing safety and equality for all students.

One student pointed out that “no other minority group is expected to tolerate constant threats and intimidation without recourse,” highlighting the serious consequences of unchecked harassment on college campuses.

The order’s detractors contend that it may be unconstitutional and an overreach. They argue that although criminals should be held accountable, more general actions like canceling student visas for protest-related activities could stifle free expression.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has expressed concerns that protected protest expressions should not be subject to punitive measures. On campuses, proponents of free speech contend that maintaining the First Amendment and creating spaces where difficult conversations can take place without fear of violence or intimidation are crucial.

Some student protesters believe their demonstrations are falsely accused of going too far, and many campuses struggle to define what antisemitism is. A University of Pennsylvania senior emphasized the need to distinguish between acts of violence or intimidation and free expression, saying that campuses should be safe spaces for debates on delicate subjects and where free speech is protected.