STROLLING around the tree-lined courtyards of Harvard university with my chum was an inspiring experience.

So much so, in fact, that we decided to apply to study there.

There were loads of folk strolling around at no great pace, and they all seemed to be going nowhere, at a sedate amble that suggested that I would fit right in.

We booked an appointment with the bursar and we were stunned to learn that we had passed the entrance exam by virtue of having an honours degree from UK universities.

This meant we were accepted to study for a PhD, as sadly they didn’t offer masters degrees.

But we never did study in the hallowed halls of Harvard – after the bursar informed us the course would cost $25,000 a year for six years.

Read More: Golf course row highlights wider problem in the Highlands

I never did make the phone call home to my parents, but I’m sure that if I had, the pride at their boy being accepted into Harvard would have quickly evaporated at the mere mention of the cost.

The response would almost certainly have ended in off. 

Even pride has a price – and it’s considerably less than the $150,000 it would have been to allow me to saunter around Massachusetts in a duffle coat with books under my arm for six years.

At least I can always say that I once got accepted to study at Harvard.

Universities are curious places, and were once the setting for radical thoughts and lively debates, with no topic seemingly off limits.

Recently, however, they have become some of the least tolerant places in the planet, where academics are cancelled at the drop of a hat for having views that some students don’t like.

Freedom of speech underpins democracy – it is the single most important thing in a free society and must be preserved at all costs, and not be sacrificed to pander to a few tiresome students.

Read More: Academics pensioners and climate change report is all hot air

Thankfully, help is at hand, as universities, colleges and students’ unions in England which fail to uphold free speech duties are set to be named publicly by the higher education watchdog. 

Institutions could be forced to pay students, staff and visiting speakers if complaints about restrictions on their free speech are upheld under the plans.

A consultation on the proposals by the Office for Students (OfS) – which are due to come into effect in August – suggests fines could also be imposed on students’ unions if they do not comply with their free speech duties.

It comes after the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill became law in May –which requires universities, colleges and students’ unions in England to take steps to ensure lawful freedom of speech on campus.

This does not include unlawful speech, such as harassing others or inciting violence or terrorism.

Under the proposed complaints scheme, someone can complain to the OfS about a loss that they have suffered because a university, college, or students’ union has not taken steps to secure their free speech within the law.

Read More: No such thing as just transition... just ask steelworkers and miners 

This is long overdue and a similar law should be considered by the Scottish government. 

The consultation suggests that an institution may be told to make a “payment of sums” to the complainant if the OfS decides that the complaint is justified.

Of course, freedom of speech comes with a degree of responsibility and recent events show that even elite universities are struggling with the issue.

Harvard university president Claudine Gray Gay testified before the the US Congress last week about combatting campus anti-semitism, following recent events in Gaza and Israel.

In a tense exchange, Representative Elise M Stefanik asked the university presidents:”At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?”

Professor Gay’s response, “It can be, depending on the context,” garnered widespread criticism.

Her Ivy League colleague, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill, answered the same question with: “If it is directed and severe and pervasive, it is harassment. It is a context-dependent decision.”

Read More: This is a dangerous anti-Semitic M&S row

Prof Magill resigned after the comment, but shamefully, Prof Gay is still in post.

There is absolutely no context in which calling for the genocide of Jews is acceptable – it goes beyond fair comment as free speech into hate and is illegal, and rightly so.

Under the Professors’ warped logic, then it is also okay to call for the slaughter of Muslims, the mass rape of women and the lynching of black people.

There is no context to justify any of the above and anyone who does should be in jail.

But it perhaps illustrates why some universities are struggling with the concept of speech freedoms that now requires a law to protect them. It is vital that freedom of speech is protected, but not at any cost.