I made my argument by referencing LBJ. But to spell it out in real simple terms:
Attacking religious minorities, prohibiting people from speaking on campus because they are Jewish or "Zionist" in your parlance, creating obstacles where Jews cannot freely traverse campus without being subject to abuse (verbal and otherwise), threatening physical harm, physical assualts, being driven to take cover in univeristies libraries -- all appear to be legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights to people like you under the guise, I suppose, that the First Amendment
supercedes consitutional protections against religious, ethnic, nation origin discrimination or violence. It does not.
Clear?
Can I help you understand? Sure but its unlikely to take place in the MR forums as people are just wedded to their cognitive biases. I rather suggest a good place to start is to do more study on the First Amendment and legitimate use time, place, manner restrictions and other rights in the constitutional order, which were all summarily ignored by Columbia, Harvard and other institutions of so-called higher education because you know ... "context."
So, like I said ... you would have hated LBJ and the civil rights movement.
Dozens of universities have vowed tougher responses to curtail violence and disruptions, NBC News found. But few have explained how they will effectively enforce them.
www.nbcnews.com