Physically safe, but intellectually unsafe. Where their beliefs and worldviews are challenged. But where they have no fear of passionate expression becoming physically threatening. Within that, a stipulated call for genocide of anyone probably shouldn’t need more context. That’s probably enough of a physical threat to be an easy answer.

Then you can get into the subtleties of current protests - parroting Hamas slogans which amount to calls for ethnic cleansing - maybe that’s subtle enough to be protected speech. Lord knows squelching speech doesn’t make objectionable ideas disappear, and kids are probably mostly just parroting a slogan, not calling for atrocities. Confront it, don’t cancel it. But the problem is, there is so much supersensitivity on campuses to all kinds of expression. As Zakaria says, just not for Jews or Asians. Those are not deemed to be groups needing protection from offense in the hierarchy of oppressed groups. So, free speech simply doesn’t exist at any of these schools.

I definitely understand the concerns about admission practices. Finding truly objective criteria might be impossible given the advantages of some kids over others. But wrt to student bodies - everyone should be treated the same. Members of identity group A should be considered no more exempt from offense than members of identity group B. Physically safe, intellectually unsafe. But with the resources to learn to build coping skills. Which will be necessary in the world - everybody encounters disrespect and offense, and functional adults have to learn how to create their own support structures, or safe spaces, if you prefer.