Frequent incidents of racist hate speech on college and university campuses continue to instigate an ideological battleground between legal purists, anti-racist scholars, and those otherwise situated somewhere therein. We find that arguments from legal purists are predicated upon a false-equivalency between racist and anti-racist speech where the effect, value, and embedded power dynamics of the former are often disregarded. We engage in a phenomenological analysis of a four-year, private institution--Clearview College (CVC)--where a controversial speaker was invited to campus by a conservative student organization. We specifically interrogate how the seemingly race-neutral free speech policies at CVC, which were informed by the "Chicago Principles," were racially structured in impact. We utilize a conceptual framework that demarcates intellectual safety and dignitary safety as a foundational point of departure to analyze the responses from 20 undergraduate students. The responses from focus groups revealed two primary themes: (1) racist hate speech as a threat to dignitary safety, and (2) institutional retribution against students defending their dignitary safety. Implications for higher education policy and praxis are provided.