On June 21, 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court made a very brave decision in Texas v. Johnson. Voting 5-4, the court upheld the right of Gregory Lee Johnson to burn the American flag, because “Johnson’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.”

Even more striking than this decision is the concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative Ronald Reagan appointee. Justice Kennedy wrote, “The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result.”

Is the burning of the American flag an offensive behavior? I believe most American citizens would be offended by such a spectacle, and even more offended are those who, like me, were not born in or grew up in the United States and never spoke English with their moms and dads; those who chose to leave their country because of the opportunities and freedoms that America offers.

So when I see the American flag desecrated I am saddened, hurt and angry. But I also feel proud, because when we allow a fellow citizen to burn the flag or to yell “God Damn America!” we demonstrate that our love for the ideals that are behind this country is so strong that we will allow the desecration of their greatest symbol. Our belief in freedom is such that we will defend those who demonstrate their dissent through an act that almost any country outlaws. The willingness to accept such an offensive action is proof of our commitment to freedom of expression.

It is because of this belief that I feel disturbed at the renewed attacks on free speech that we see in many quarters of American academia. At Chapman University, the administration, faculty and trustees have just passed a comprehensive statement in support of free speech, but in many other universities, free speech is imperiled.

One of the latest incidents involves Yale. The university’s Intercultural Affairs Committee sent a (well-intended) Halloween email asking students to avoid costumes potentially offensive to cultures (no feathered heads), religions (no mullahs, rabbis or nuns) or ethnic groups (no modification of skin tone, the email recites).

The suggestion is certainly worth making, and the tone of the email is respectful and positive, though one could take issue with its conclusions. And, indeed, one Erika Christakis, a lecturer at Yale, responded with an argument to the effect that young people should be allowed the ability of choosing costumes that could be “a little bit … provocative or, yes, offensive.” The email is publicly available, and whether we agree with the writer, it is well-written, respectful and intelligently argued.

This response did not sit well with many students, who attacked Ms. Christakis, and asked for the university to fire her. Things worsened when her husband, Nicholas, who heads one of Yale’s undergraduate colleges, stepped in to support his wife. This led to a public confrontation, where he was yelled at, insulted and asked to step down. The video of the confrontation is available online.

The contrast between the intellectual and respectful tone of the two emails that provoked the incident and the behavior of the students on the video is most interesting.

It truly does not matter whether we think that Yale’s Intercultural Affairs Committee’s advice was appropriate, or whether we side with the Christakises. In fact, the exchange of emails on this topic was an excellent model of respectful engagement, and a terrific opportunity for discussion on a thorny issue: Should sensitivity ever trump free speech?

Instead, a sizable group of students, supported by some faculty, declared that the time for debate was over, and that those who disagreed with them had to be fired. Those students, and those faculty, had become so self-absorbed to demand the intellectual obliteration of any dissent, and those who don’t embrace the new orthodoxy are redefined as enemies.

A similar story has taken place closer to home, at Claremont McKenna, where junior class President Kris Brackmann resigned when a Halloween picture of her was posted on Facebook. The picture included two friends of Kris’ dressed like Mexicans, was considered racially insensitive and led to the student’s public contrite apologies and resignation.

Just a few days later, CMK’s dean of students Mary Spellman used a less than appropriate word in an email and, once again, had to resign. Interestingly, the email sent by the dean is actually very kind and supportive, but for the use of a single word (the email is available online). Just like the student before her, the dean publicly apologized and then resigned.

These incidents are troubling, but what is really worrisome is the rhetoric that I have heard from colleagues around the nation, with some suggesting that unfettered free speech is a luxury for privileged whites, and that, while it is important to protect the free speech of those who burn the flag (because they are attacking the dominant culture), a very different approach has to be taken when free speech (like the Halloween costumes) is offensive to minorities.

Academia, once so fiercely supportive of free speech and against any form of censorship, is now beginning to question its value. Some, in fact, are proposing to put explicit limits on it.

And, if so, who determines which groups can be made fun of? Who determines which groups are untouchable? Who, ultimately, will be the censor, who decides what can be said, taught or performed? Those in academia who don’t perceive this danger will soon find out that the limits to speech they are seeking will bite their own hands.

Daniele C. Struppa is chancellor of Chapman University in Orange.