This study answers the question: How can campus hate speech be regulated constitutionally? Three distinct methodologies bear on this question: 1) conventional legal methods of research and analysis; 2) critical legal methods; and 3) qualitative methods of empirical research. Conventional legal methods discover decision rules presently followed by courts adjudicating campus hate speech rules. Critical legal methods reveal rupture points in the conventional application of First Amendment law. Then, critical methods suggest the narrative stories of people marginalized by conventional application can be interjected into these rupture points, as persuasive evidence to change the law. In this study, qualitative methods of data collection and analysis generate such narratives. The legal principle grounding empirical inquiry is that campus hate speech regulation is constitutional when the rule is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. This study concludes: a university can regulate campus hate speech constitutionally because campus hate speech impairs a university's compelling interest in providing equal educational opportunity.