The recent censorship and public excoriation of circuit Judge Kyle Duncan by a dean in the Stanford Law School’s (SLS) diversity, equity, and inclusion office is a potent reminder of the growing ranks of pervasive administrators embedded throughout collegiate operations. Most of these administrators are progressive activists who promote a divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda on campus and establish the terms of political engagement. These administrators have polarized campus discourse, creating a state of intellectual anxiety and paralysis among faculty and students alike.

These dynamics were on full display last week when Tirien Steinbach, an SLS diversity dean, helped provoke student rancor by confronting the Judge Duncan during his remarks on campus. Steinbach read from a prepared statement which argued that the judge’s actions and judicial opinions harmed the students in the room and were dangerous to the country’s fabric. Steinbach’s actions are a very public example of political overreach from college administrators. The higher education world must wake up to this reality, promote viewpoint diversity instead of stifling dialogue, and rein in administrators.

Fortunately, Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne recognized that the Steinbach was completely out of line, issuing a formal apology to Judge Duncan. Importantly, the letter asserted that “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”

The underlying issue is that student-facing administrators should be neutral; they should promote and defend academic freedom and school values, not their own political beliefs.

Tirien Steinbach crossed a number of clear lines. As an administrator and attorney, she did not uphold Stanford’s speech policy nor California’s Leonard Law which provides students First Amendment-like rights on campus: In open public areas of campus, students may peacefully protest. But in this case, a Federalist Society speaking event is not a public forum despite being open and welcoming. And as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Alex Morey notes, “When a speaking event transitions into Q&A from attendees, students can use that time to express themselves.” At that point when the forum has been opened, students can launch pointed questions and can make even “rude” or “uncivil” comments. But here, the federal judge could not speak and had not opened the floor to questions. Thus, as Morey notes , “heckling in these circumstances is not free speech. It’s censorship.”

This is exactly what Steinbach knowingly promoted and personally led; Steinbach was not concerned with maintaining an environment at the law school that embraces viewpoint diversity or Stanford’s position toward speech and expression.

Supporters of Steinbach may cite the Stanford Administrative Guide and point out that the school does not “inhibit the expression of personal political views by any individual in the University community” and that “there is no restriction on discussion of political issues or teaching of political techniques. Academic endeavors which address public policy issues are in no way prohibited or constrained.” But this was not a seminar or a teachable moment. Rather, the event showcased a far too common collegiate problem: an attempt by an activist administrator to influence students and silence the remarks of a speaker that she found objectionable.

The same administrative guide explicitly states that “While all members of the University community may express their political opinions and engage in political activities, it is very important that they do so only in their individual capacities and avoid even the appearance that they are speaking or acting for the University in political matters.” As Judge Duncan asked for an administrator to help keep the event civil and open, Steinbach was the administrator who stepped forward and represented Stanford. Despite reiterating her earlier position in an email sent to the student body supporting the event, Steinbach crossed another professional line. Steinbach took an  ideological position and engaged in explicit political activity as an officer of the University. Stanford , “expressly disavows any political opinions or activities that are not made in accordance with these provisions: such opinions and activities are not authorized and may not be attributed to the University.”

In her private, personal life, Steinbach is welcome to promote her views and engage in political activities and protests as she sees fit. But she knowingly tried to shut down dialogue that she found disturbing despite her role in promoting diversity and inclusion on campus, displaying a blatant disregard for Stanford’s Administrative Guide toward political behavior. Yet Steinbach’s actions are not that uncommon on college and university campuses today.

May her behavior finally demonstrate the dangers administrators pose to debate and dialogue on campuses. Let this serve as a wake-up call for colleges around the country to stop stifling open dialogue and debate. Sheltering students from diverse opinions is antithetical to the mission of higher education.

This article originally appeared in the AEIdeas blog and is reprinted with kind permission from the American Enterprise Institute.