The presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Pennsylvania, Claudine Gay, Sally Kornbluth, and Elizabeth Magill respectively, were hauled before a congressional committee to answer questions about antisemitism on their campuses. The money shot was delivered by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), herself a Harvard grad:

"Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your student code of conduct."

All three answered that while genocide is personally abhorrent to them, the code of conduct does not forbid speech, however horrific, unless it is targeted specifically at an individual or group (harassment) or crosses over into conduct, which is extremely close to the constitutional standard for criminalizing speech. All three presidents, especially Magill, are under calls for resignation or termination.

It didn't have to be this way.

First, public speech advocating genocide is not protected by the First Amendment--I don't think. I don't know for sure. 

Second, the 1A standard, whatever it is on calls for genocide, is the standard for state intervention. These are private schools. They could very easily prohibit genocide-advocating speech without concern for the First Amendment.

It is using the state intervention standard to their private student codes of conduct that has got the presidents in this extremely hot water. They each answered Stefanik's question correctly: their student codes of conduct do not prohibit genocide-advocating speech. If each had answered in this way, they wouldn't be getting scalded right now:

"No, Representative, the code of conduct does not prohibit genocidal speech and that is going to change right now. We are adopting a new code of conduct that subjects a student to punishment for advocating genocide."