It shouldn't need repeating. The Economist has a good article about academic freedom in this week's issue.
The Chicago Statement on Academic Freedom as summarized in the article:
“It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive,” it states. “Concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable.” The responsibility of a university, it concludes, is not only to promote “fearless freedom of debate”, but also to protect it. ...
Even the Chicago Statement has reservations. Expression that “invades substantial privacy” or “constitutes a genuine threat” can be punished. The university has the right to regulate the “time, place and manner of expression”, so that ordinary activities are not unduly disrupted—though this should never be used to undermine an “open discussion of ideas”. The statement is, in short, written not only to allow speech, but to facilitate protest. When it first appeared, this may have seemed a bit academic. Not any more.
I was lucky. I did my undergraduate studies at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, in the 1960s. We had speakers from "Fair Play for Cuba", the ACLU, The American Nazi Party (George Lincoln Rockwell), and socialists (Norman Thomas) to name a few, not to mention the "sex seminars" that discussed, gasp!, pre-marital sex.