You can’t have it both ways with the First Amendment.

But President Donald Trump is trying to do just that.

On the one hand, he issued an executive order that mandates free speech on college campuses.

On the other, Trump has created an atmosphere in which research scientists are subject to censorship of their results if they commit the grave sin of attributing any global warming to human activity.

Censorship is in contravention of the First Amendment, thus it’s hard to stomach that both actions came from the same person. When you censor somebody, there’s no free speech. The president is trying to apply First Amendment free-speech rights to students on campuses, only to deny such protections for academic researchers who should not be denied those rights.

If there is a free speech problem on campuses today that needs to be settled by executive order, then a concomitant executive order ought to be issued that there be no federal censorship related to any campus research.

Trump signed the order on March 21, and he waved the threat of federal authorities rescinding research funds from universities that they perceive are not promoting free speech. The order requires public universities to create and enforce protections so students are comfortable about expressing themselves.

“The universities have tried to restrict free speech, impose thought conformity and shut down voices of great young Americans,” Trump said.

The predictable outrage followed this poorly disguised attempt at mind control meant to ensure more conservative speakers and events on college campuses.

The American Council on Education said, “This is a solution in search of a problem.”

Trump’s hypocrisy is odiferous.

U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Lafayette, spotlighted alleged censorship by the National Park Service, which tried to remove references to human-caused climate change that University of Colorado research associate Maria Caffrey included in a scientific report. The NPS eventually did publish the report, absent any censorship.

Neguse called out the NPS’ inspector general, who chose not to investigate the alleged censorship and closed the investigation before it could begin.

“It’s completely unacceptable for the administration to censor climate science research,” Neguse said. “It’s absolutely critical that researchers at our institutions and our federal labs are free to do their work without the threat of political censorship.”

Caffrey worked at CU from 2012 to 2018. Her research included studying rising sea levels at national parks, which she completed in 2016 (and the report finally was made public in March 2018). After her report came out, she lost her federal funding.

Why hasn’t the CU Board of Regents spoken up against this attempt at academic censorship?

Are the regents aware that CU, systemwide, received $636.6 million in federal money in FY 2016-17 — and don’t they want to protect this funding?

Colleges and universities receive billions of dollars of federal money each year. More than 30 percent of that is for research.

The regents I recently spoke to were unaware of the censorship attempts in the Caffrey case. But after I shared this information with them, I was told there would be no political will to deal with this issue.

The regents have willingly discussed Trump’s executive order regarding free speech, but have failed to discuss the impact of censorship on CU’s research. Why free speech and not censorship?

And why aren’t the regents talking about climate change, the need to reduce emissions, controlling carbon dioxide gases and the reduction of the use of power plants? Those last two are the biggest contributors to the degradation of our environment.

One of the most important decisions a regent ever makes is the hiring of the university president. Another is maintaining First Amendment protection, both in speech and research because it applies to both.

As egregious as this censorship issue is — affecting their own CU research associate — the CU Board of Regents has a duty to at least make this an agenda item and discuss it in an open, transparent session at a future board meeting.

In summary, if the First Amendment truly stands for free speech, then it also applies to research conducted by institutions of higher education.

Jim Martin is a former regent for the University of Colorado system.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.