In an era when saying something unpopular on a college campus is riskier than ever , when speaker shout-downs and violent protests are a regular occurrence, and when faculty fear teaching controversial topics, an institution’s free speech promises are not enough.

Too many college students are apathetic about — or worse, in favor of — censorship, undercutting their own expressive rights by asking administrators to forcibly suppress ideas or perspectives they dislike.

Thankfully, some college presidents have realized it’s impossible to run a university in such a state and are pushing back . Public campuses are obligated to honor the First Amendment, as is the bulk of private ones that elect to make near-identical free expression promises. But not all presidential declarations of the importance of expressive rights, usually necessitated by some controversy, are created equal. Advocating emphatically for the value of free speech itself and for why a culture of free expression is critical to a robust education is even more important than simply paying lip service to an institution's free speech obligations.

Presidential free speech statements got a much-needed bump in popularity this past spring, courtesy of the “ Stanford Effect ,” so dubbed after a group of Stanford Law students shouted down a federal judge over disagreement with his rulings on abortion and his stances on gay marriage and gender ideology. After years of rampant student demands that administrators resort to censorship to protect students from “offensive” speech, the Stanford incident appeared, at long last, to be a bridge too far.

Stanford Law Dean Jenny Martinez issued a defense of robust expressive freedom in higher education that became an instant classic . Stanford’s president then renewed the university’s commitment to free expression . And Martinez’s promotion to provost last month was an indication that Stanford is serious about that commitment.

Shortly thereafter, Penn State recommitted to free speech after struggling through controversies of its own. President Neeli Bendapudi released a great five-minute video last semester succinctly explaining the public university’s First Amendment obligations and why it must allow speakers with controversial views on campus.

Cornell University was likewise quick to speak out post-Stanford. It too had weathered a shout-down , a student government demand that the university force faculty to give trigger warnings, and ongoing debates about “ hate speech .” This past spring, President Martha Pollack introduced a “ Freedom of Expression Theme Year ” that she’s continued to promote as students return to campus. Pollack’s initiative highlights not only Cornell’s rules mirroring the First Amendment but also the benefits of free speech and academic freedom that include “educating new generations of global citizens, pursuing novel research and scholarship, and advancing the public good.”

Cornell encourages students to “challenge personal beliefs, to consider new ideas and unfamiliar perspectives, and to foster discussion around core freedoms for democracy and higher education.” Why? Because free speech and academic freedom, Pollack wrote in a recent email to students , “are key to our ability to equip our students with the skills needed for effective participation in democracy: from active listening and engaging across difference, to leading controversial discussions and pursuing effective advocacy.”

Pollack doesn’t just tell students they can’t censor. She explains why they shouldn’t want to. That’s a critical difference that, I predict, will go far to improve the intellectual climate at any college or university.

Today, a genuine commitment to free speech requires more than a restatement of institutional policy of the law because the First Amendment is so much more than just legal doctrine. It reinforces the idea that in our republic, “we the people” have different ideas about how to live, and it’s not up to the government to decide the winning view. With belief in that principle waning , college presidents have a unique role to play: They should remind their students why the principle matters.

That’s why, on today’s polarized campuses, lukewarm free speech commitments aren’t enough. Educating future leaders means preparing them to solve our world’s most intractable problems. Doing so always involves difficult conversations. This generation must be empowered to face them capably, with confidence. Our democracy demands as much, and our educators must demand it too.

Alex Morey is director of campus rights advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression .