This year, graduating seniors seem sophomoric. At least, that seems the consensus view of the commentariat, from the New York Times to the New York Post and everything in between.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bowed out of delivering the commencement address at Rutgers University because of her role in the Iraq War; former University of California at Berkeley chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau withdrew from a commencement speech at Harverford College over protests for the university’s suppression of an Occupy rally in 2011; Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, took a knee when protestors at Smith College accused her organization of supporting “imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.”

Here at Harvard, students have similarly protested the selections of former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg as commencement speaker for the College and Colorado State Senator Michael C. Johnston as speaker for the Graduate School of Education—though no last-minute surprises are expected.

All around, these expressions of student activism are being dismissed and derided as bigoted, whimsical, and censorious—the latest chapter of the Millennial generation’s self-absorption and overindulgence in political correctness at the expense of the freedom of expression essential to academic life. This kneejerk condemnation is flawed.

Freedom of expression is a two-way street. In all of these protests, students are answering speech with speech—those who condemn protests are just as guilty of intolerance of free expression as the ones they accuse. In the words of Professor Richard O. Lempert, writing for the Brookings Institution, “If we value openness to controversial people and ideas, we must similarly value openness to speech that challenges what controversial people have said or done.”

Of course, this does not mean that such protests are beyond criticism, so long as it focuses on substance and not style. For example, revoking the address of Lagarde, one of the world’s most powerful women, before a premier women’s college for the unexplained reason of furthering the patriarchy seems a much more dubious and unpersuasive argument than advocating for a rescindment of an honorary degree at Brandeis University to Ayaan Hirsi Ali for calling Islam a “nihilistic cult of death.”

Part of the problem appears to lie with universities that waver in the face of protest, leaving planned speakers in limbo. Rather than naming a name and then sitting silent, universities should play a more active role in refereeing the campus discussion.

One of the best reactions to such controversy was the Ed School’s decision to not only reiterate support for Senator Johnston but also arrange for him to host an open forum in order to discuss his controversial policies. No one is deprived of speech, and the critics get a chance to hear their questions answered.

Critics of the commencement protests appeal to the sanctity of freedom of expression in our society. On the day that ultimately celebrates the students’ accomplishments, they should recognize that that freedom extends to students as much as it does to the speaker.