[throwaway9324]

I realize that it can look that way. But what could I do to have a fair chance to refute something that is made to be hard to disagree with, as most opinion pieces are? Where the subject is also something that I and the audience are inexperienced with and where the audience share the emotion being expressed in the article.

Regardless, here is my on-topic opinion. Colleges are one of the few places in society where you can experiment with different ideas. If those ideas always have to be holistic in regards to the schools well-being or in-line with that the NY times thinks they will very easy be limited. Wildly disagreeing is a good thing, including disagreeing with what, how, when and where you can disagree. Say you weren't able to try to censor something, then few people would see the importance of free speech.

If there's anyone who should be criticized, to the extent they are guilty, it's not those who express their opinions, but the schools themselves. They are the "referees".

The article of course on purpose disregards the fact that these kind of groups, regardless if you agree with them or not, often have very well-thought out arguments, stories and reasons behind their actions.