This article originally appeared in Forbes.

With the school calendar winding down, the clock is ticking for the Class of 2016 and other undergraduates to compete in this year’s contest for the most ridiculous campus protests and Ivory Tower outrages.

Students at Emory University offered a strong entry recently by complaining that chalk messages promoting “Trump 2016” threatened members of the university community. The students voiced concern and protested after about 100 pro-Trump messages were found written in chalk on the Atlanta campus.One Emory senior bemoaned that the pro-Trump graffiti artists failed to “[t]hink about how your language can be oppressive toward other people.”

What does it mean if the “future leaders of tomorrow” complain to university officials because of political speech supporting a politician written in dust that will wash away next time it rains?

Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt addressed this in last September’s issue of the Atlantic in their article titled, The Coddling of the American Mind. The authors reviewed the current trend in higher education of protecting college students from unpopular and controversial views, and warned of the dangers of the “safe space” movement:

Attempts to shield students from words, ideas, and people that might cause them emotional discomfort are bad for the students. They are bad for the workplace, which will be mired in unending litigation if student expectations of safety are carried forward. And they are bad for American democracy, which is already paralyzed by worsening partisanship. When the ideas, values, and speech of the other side are seen not just as wrong but as willfully aggressive toward innocent victims, it is hard to imagine the kind of mutual respect, negotiation, and compromise that are needed to make politics a positive-sum game.

Rather than trying to protect students from words and ideas that they will inevitably encounter, colleges should do all they can to equip students to thrive in a world full of words and ideas that they cannot control.

Often the university administration is complicit in the coddling. At Emory, instead of rebuffing the complaints, the Emory Wheel student newspaper reported that the University will review security footage. That will surely have a chilling effect on intellectual diversity on campus.

Eventually, James G. Wagner, the President of Emory, joined the chalking by writing in all caps, “Emory stands for free expression!”

We should all be concerned with the campus environment. Students shouldn’t be wrapped in cocoons of groupthink. Yes, they would be protected. But the point of college isn’t to give out A+ trophies to students who just repeat back everything they learned in high school. Part of the value of college is the experience of being exposed to new ideas—and not just learning how to dismiss new ideas, but how to engage new ideas.

The chalking issue isn’t going away. Students responded to the protests by chalking for Trump at other campuses and then tweeting pictures with the hashtag #TheChalkening.

This is one way to respond.

Another way to respond is for students who disagree with Donald Trump’s ideas or support a different candidate to counter by chalking their own message. Imagine a robust chalk debate that could then turn into a real live presidential debate on campus between students. The entire campus community would benefit from a civil, thoughtful discussion. And it would be a great opportunity for students to learn how to argue effectively for their ideas and against opposing ideas. This should be happening on more campuses.

American college students deserve a wake-up call, not more coddling. Colleges should be safe spaces for, not from, the free exchange of ideas. Chalk that.