Across the United States, a disciplinary tool designed to prevent harassment is increasingly being used to police speech, silencing students not for threats or misconduct, but for expressing unpopular views. ‘No-contact orders’ (NCOs), once confined to cases of stalking or sexual harassment, are now routinely issued across American universities. Their targets are no longer limited to serious misconduct cases and now include students whose opinions are simply considered objectionable.
According to a recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal, colleges including Georgetown, Tulane, Carnegie Mellon and Princeton have seen a surge in student requests for administrative orders prohibiting contact from their peers. While the Journal notes these orders are often used to resolve disputes such as roommate spats and breakups, their implications for freedom of expression are no less troubling.
Although informal no-contact arrangements existed previously, the widespread adoption of formal NCO policies was driven by the Department for Education’s 2011 ‘Dear Colleague’ letter on Title IX, which encouraged universities to use “interim measures”, including NCOs, to prevent escalation during investigations. These restrictions extend to written, electronic, or even third-party communication.
In principle, NCOs were intended to be non-punitive: a way to reduce conflict between two parties without presuming guilt while due process took its course. In practice, however, violations can result in suspension, formal charges, and even expulsion.
More recently, the grounds for issuing these orders have expanded. While some institutions still require credible allegations of misconduct, others now allow NCOs in response to subjective criteria such as ‘psychological harm’, ‘problematic interactions’, or even perceived ‘emotional discomfort’. At Tulane, for instance, an order may be granted “if such contact may be harmful or detrimental”, a standard that invites wide interpretation. At Carnegie Mellon, persistent “unwanted” or “indirect” contact, including disagreement in a group chat, can suffice.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), these lowered thresholds have enabled universities to routinely grant NCOs in response to complaints of emotional discomfort triggered by political or religious expression. In several recent cases, no threats or targeted harassment were alleged. Instead, orders were imposed on students whose views provoked disagreement or distress, even when expressed in classrooms.
A notable example comes from Princeton. Between 2022 and 2024, student journalists for The Princeton Tory, a conservative campus magazine, were served with NCOs after covering pro-Palestinian protests. In one case, Danielle Shapiro, a Jewish writer for the magazine, followed up by email with a protest organiser to confirm the accuracy of a published quote. The organiser viewed this as harassment, and the university issued an NCO preventing further contact.
In another incident, the magazine’s editor, Alexandra Orbuch, was reporting at a November 2023 rally organised by the Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest campaign when a graduate student protester attempted to block her camera and allegedly shoved her. Although Orbuch reported the altercation to campus police, the protester was subsequently granted an NCO against her. This was despite university policy requiring a complainant to first request no further contact before such an order is issued – a step that had not been taken. Orbuch was warned not to approach or write about the individual involved, and a Princeton dean reportedly suggested she consider withdrawing published articles and avoid media interviews. Such a directive arguably amounts to unconstitutional prior restraint, barring a student not only from contact, but from writing about or publicly commenting on another person. Courts have long held that blanket prohibitions on future expression are among the most serious infringements on free speech under American constitutional law.
Legal experts have long warned that the overuse of NCOs raises serious concerns. The Supreme Court’s 1999 ruling in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education sets a high threshold for peer harassment: conduct must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it effectively bars the victim’s access to education. Hurt feelings, offensive views, or emotional distress – without more – do not meet that standard.
A recent federal case highlights the continuing importance of that principle. At Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE), Maggie DeJong, a Christian graduate student, successfully challenged the university’s use of NCOs. The case stemmed from three simultaneous orders issued after classmates objected to her views on race, religion, and politics, including her support for traditional Christian teaching on sexuality, her opposition to critical race theory, and her belief that political correctness was stifling open dialogue in the classroom. DeJong had made no threats and had not targeted any individual. Nonetheless, the university barred her from contacting the complainants in any form, including during class discussion and collaborative group coursework.
When DeJong took legal action, her lawyers argued that the orders “barred [DeJong] from fully participating in classes” and left her “chilled in her ability to frequent campus”. Although SIUE sought to have the case dismissed, a federal court ruled in March 2023 that she could pursue declaratory relief, stating: “A declaration that the [no-contact orders] violated her First Amendment rights would affirm her entitlement to damages.” The university later settled, agreeing to rescind the orders, revise its policies, and require three faculty members to undergo First Amendment training.
DeJong’s legal victory forms part of a broader pushback by US-based civil liberties groups against the expanding use of NCOs on campus. In some cases, that pressure has prompted policy revisions and limited reform. But the underlying problem remains. When speech that offends is redefined as harmful, and when administrative measures can be triggered by emotional discomfort rather than unlawful conduct, the result is a chilling effect on lawful expression.
