On election night 2016, Mark Schlissel, the University of Michigan¡¯s president, addressed more than 1,000 students, declaring that the 90 percent of them who had favored the losing candidate had rejected ¡°hate.¡± He thereby effectively made those who disagreed with him and with the campus majority eligible to be targets of the university¡¯s ¡°bias response teams.¡± That his announced contempt for them made him a suitable target of the thought police is a thought that presumably occurred to no one.

Now, however, this leader of a public institution is being sued for constitutional violations. So are some members of Michigan¡¯s archetypal administrative bloat ¡ª the ever-thickening layer of social-justice crusaders and orthodoxy enforcers who, nationwide, live parasitically off universities whose actual purpose is scholarship. These include Michigan¡¯s vice provost for equity and inclusion, and the director of the Office of Student Conflict Resolution. Such bureaucrats have professional stakes in finding inequities to rectify and conflicts to resolve.

A splendid new organization, Speech First, headed by Nicole Neily, is not content merely to respond after the fact to violations of students¡¯ constitutional rights. It is suing to invalidate Michigan¡¯s ¡°elaborate investigatory and disciplinary apparatus¡± that exists ¡°to suppress and punish speech other students deem ¡®demeaning,¡¯ ¡®bothersome¡¯ or ¡®hurtful.¡¯ ¡± Speech First¡¯s complaint notes that ¡°the most sensitive student on campus effectively dictates the terms under which others may speak.¡± The university darkly warns that ¡°bias comes in many forms¡± and ¡°the most important indication of bias is your own feelings.¡± Speech First says that Michigan¡¯s edifice of speech regulation, with its Orwellian threats to submit offenders to ¡°restorative justice,¡± ¡°individual education¡± and ¡°unconscious bias training,¡± amounts to unconstitutional prior restraint speech and is too overbroad and vague to give anyone due notice of what is proscribed.