A new study published in Science Advances finds many college students generally oppose punishment for objectionable speech unless they view it as highly harmful, with support varying based on who is targeted. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Colorado, and Stanford and Columbia conducted online survey experiments with just over 3,000 college students. The findings highlight a split between “particularism,” where students support extra protection for historically marginalized groups, and “universalism,” where students want equal protections for all groups. The study also finds students’ views on speech punishment track political and ideological affiliations more strongly among those with weaker positions. At the same time, students supported equal protections for Jewish and Muslim targets at levels higher than for white targets, reflecting how campus speech debates are shaped by lived experiences and recent protest dynamics. The practical impact for higher education is that campus speech and disciplinary policy discussions are likely to continue colliding with differences in student perceptions of harm, protection, and fairness, even when institutions aim to codify consistent standards.