Ideas often are shared, considered, traded, transmitted, and debated at institutions of higher learning. Public higher education institutions are required to protect freedoms of speech and expression granted by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Occasionally, they serve as locales for avant-garde ideas and speakers expressing views unpopular with segments of the population. When the speech spurs reactions that threaten campus disruption and safety, it is controversial. Two controversial speakers generating such responses at U.S. colleges and universities during 2016-2018 were Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer. Using a qualitative, multi-case study design, the researchers explore and compare how the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) and Texas A&M University (TAMU) prepared for, managed, and protected speech and their respective campuses before and during Yiannopoulos’ and Spencer’s visits. Given the recent attacks on higher education by state legislators from across the country whose purpose is to eradicate DEI from schools, protecting the freedom to engage in dialogue ensures continued academic freedom and learning uninhibited by a state policy makers or cultural ideology.