Universities have gotten into not insignificant trouble for attempting to restrict the freedom of speech on campus. Shenanigans such as creating "free speech zones" for example. So some of them go the other direction and try to ensure freedom of speech is respected.
Someone merely saying that any group should be genocided is perhaps borderline but it is not the same as saying "X groups should be genocided, and this is how we will go about achieving it."
The latter incites or comes close to inciting imminent lawless action. That is not protected speech. The former expresses an opinion that is predictably unpopular but popularity does not determine legality.
Sure the universities could have sat around and tried to predict all possible ways a code of conduct rule could be violated and made a list, then had someone study the list and abuse it with one thing not specifically stated on the list, because the list makers failed the impossible task specifying the myriad ways a person could bully a person/group. OR they could just have a simple rule against bullying and consider the context against freedom of speech. A case by case basis. Which is what the 3 presidents said they do when asked by Stefanik. But I guess doing that would treat everyone fairly and we cannot tolerate that. Because jews are beyond reproach.
Universities have gotten into not insignificant trouble for attempting to restrict the freedom of speech on campus. Shenanigans such as creating "free speech zones" for example. So some of them go the other direction and try to ensure freedom of speech is respected.
Someone merely saying that any group should be genocided is perhaps borderline but it is not the same as saying "X groups should be genocided, and this is how we will go about achieving it."
The latter incites or comes close to inciting imminent lawless action. That is not protected speech. The former expresses an opinion that is predictably unpopular but popularity does not determine legality.
Sure the universities could have sat around and tried to predict all possible ways a code of conduct rule could be violated and made a list, then had someone study the list and abuse it with one thing not specifically stated on the list, because the list makers failed the impossible task specifying the myriad ways a person could bully a person/group. OR they could just have a simple rule against bullying and consider the context against freedom of speech. A case by case basis. Which is what the 3 presidents said they do when asked by Stefanik. But I guess doing that would treat everyone fairly and we cannot tolerate that. Because jews are beyond reproach.