[kbenson]

> She was formally censured by the hosting university that knew what the comments were

She was formally censured by that institution with no evidence supplied, and that institution continues to refuse to provide any evidence of what she's censured for.

Without that evidence, why should we view this as anything other than a political hit job from the Governor? It's indistinguishable from that without evidence of what they're censuring for and with the evidence of student attendees that the statements they think might be the cause are fairly benign and based on facts and/or assessment by a per-eminent professional in that field without evidence to the contrary.

Is it the newspapers twisting it into a right wing suppression of speech story, or is it really just a right wing suppression of speech story that the newspapers are doing their job bringing to the public's attention?