Restrictions feel the need to do something.

Restrictions on speech have been proven at best ineffective, and at worst counter-productive, in the fight against bigotry. Although made with the best intentions, these restrictions are often interpreted and enforced to oppose social change. For example, an article on Turlock Journal, “White supremacy posters spark outcry at Stanislaus State” became an issue when students began posting their own posters to debate against the “awakened Europeans” as they called them. If there were to be restrictions placed, it would have the power decided whether a speech is offensive or harmful. Restrictions should only be restrained with authority figures of the government or a college administration rather than removal existing power structures.
In most colleges, the administration sets up these “speech codes”. If students start to disobey the rules by vandalizing with graffiti or posting anonymous notes the administration would feel the need to do something. According to Nat Hentoff, “the cheapest, quickest way to demonstrate that it cares is to appear to suppress racist, sexist, homophobic speech” through deception so that students don’t feel as though the administration are not taking actions for their broken principles. Once the school has established a speech code “telling people what they can’t say, it will end up telling them what they can’t think” (Hentoff, p.546-9). When schools shut down speakers who voices their views, they deprive their students of the opportunity to confront those views themselves. Not letting a student to debate on the issue because of restrictions will lead them into harmful situations, and in the worst case, a martyr. A much better approach is to be consistent with our constitutional traditions such as having our amendments, and voice ourselves with the ideals we want to accomplish rather than hiding them.