Limitations on free inquiry may pertain to the Ivies as well to more pedestrian post-secondary educational options. It may be increasingly important for parents and students to be aware of the current climate on a campus prior to applying for admissions. Three related points:

1.Here is an executive order (13864 from March 21, 2019) which allows that any federal funds to an institution may be curtailed if the institution does not promote free inquiry.
Originally Posted by Executive Order 13864 - [i
excerpts related to free inquiry[/i]] Sec. 3. Improving Free Inquiry on Campus. (a) To advance the policy described in subsection 2(a) of this order, the heads of covered agencies shall, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

(b) “Covered agencies” for purposes of this section are the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, and Education; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

(c) “Federal research or education grants” for purposes of this section include all funding provided by a covered agency directly to an institution but do not include funding associated with Federal student aid programs that cover tuition, fees, or stipends.
2. Here is a reminder that lavish facilities tend to attract weaker students. Although the non-academic feature five years ago was lazy rivers, today's non-academic feature may be something else, more akin to political activism/agitation/dissent which limits free inquiry.

3. Here is a paper from Stanford, written prior to socialism being a major talking point in the US. It discusses that historically, dissent and agitation may have been encouraged for the purpose of bringing down the current system, then once the new system was in place, dissent was immediately banned.
Originally Posted by paper, 2007-2008
In a communist society, the individual's best interests are indistinguishable from the society's best interest. Thus, the idea of an individual freedom is incompatible with a communist ideology. The only reason to hold individual speech and information rights would be to better the society, a condition which would likely be met only in certain instances rather than across time, making the default a lack of freedom.
[the people] should subject the party in power, to severe criticism
leaders, while still a persecuted opposition philosophy, would strongly support speech rights and later reject them when communism becomes the ruling system. At that point, access to oppositional speech and information is no longer beneficial to the communist state, and thus no longer needed in communist philosophy.